As a former believer, in some ways I miss believing

[XiWang717]

I miss feeling comfortable with the way things were going. “Everything happens for a reason” is a mantra that can’t really be reconciled with a world view without some sort of God. It was calming believing that something bigger was always looking out for me. It was nice praying at night as a way to unwind and relay my thoughts to an all loving being.

But believing in God is not something you can just choose to do. I have come to the conclusion that it is very unlikely that there is a God and unless some world changing thing happened, I doubt that will change.

People say “you just have to open up your heart and God will open up to you” or things like that. In my eyes this is just a way of saying “you just have to be open to believing in God and your brain will do the rest.”

But it was nice when everything happened for a reason. Life was a little less stressful.

Many of us from religious backgrounds eventually turn away from God. Ironically, many of us from atheist backgrounds eventually turn to God.

 

[Sair]

Sair:

Your reasoning is way off. This deity must be, if nothing else, none other than the provider of the illusion! We, and all the rest of what we perceive as the illusion from within the illusion, are part of the illusion - we’re within it - so the provider must be outside. Why? Because, one can’t be an illusion and at the same time provide it. (That would be an illusion squared!) At least one thing must exist outside of it capable of providing and sustaining the illusion to appear as it does. What if, within the illusion, we died? That’s the only proper reasoning an illusion can make - one that tends toward the permanence of something. From within the illusion we can only surmise that we’re here at the exquisite whim of something that is not illusory.

God bless,
jd

I’m not entirely sure you understood my question. But that is perhaps the fault of my phrasing.

I’ll attempt to break this down into some sub-questions - first, and perhaps most importantly, what exactly do you believe humans are? Is a configuration of matter and energy that manifests thought, intellect, imagination, creativity and empathy, that goes through all the biological processes of birth, growth, reproduction and eventual death, a human being if it happens to belong to the species Homo sapiens? Or does humanity, human experience, as such, require something more than these physical, biological aspects?

Isn’t that what you meant by any meaning or purpose being ‘illusory’? That if the physical manifestations are all that exist, then our imagination and our intellect and our creativity and our empathy are just biological processes, and not “real”? If so, why aren’t they “real” if they’re biological processes? Is a spiritual aspect actually part of the definition of these qualities?

And if they’re illusory, how would we know from within the illusion? If we suppose, from within this illusion, that there must be a non-illusory entity that created and sustains us and gives our apparent existence meaning and purpose, what’s to say that this entity has any substantial existence? If an illusion imagines an entity…um, well, you see my point.

 

[Sair]

Catholics are not telling you “truths” about God to get you to accept those “truths”, to believe a doctrine.

If you have come in contact with the Church, you have come in contact with Jesus. If you have spent time with the Church, you are spending time with Jesus. If you are accepted into the Church, you become one of the People and a member of Jesus himself so that when people come in contact with you they are meeting Jesus.

People then and now did not join the Church to worship a god sitting in heaven, they joined the Church to be with the present Jesus, as physically close to him as his first disciples were. We walk with him, live with him, eat and drink of him, and breathe with him. If you hear us, you are actually and literally hearing him.

John Martin

This is a very interesting perspective, primarily because it shows a very nonspecific account of what people understand by religious experience.

It sounds like what you are saying is that God, understood as being one and the same with Jesus, is actually the experience of community and human interaction that comes from participating in religious observance.

There are many ways people can experience a sense of community - attending church is just one of them. I have been watching Daniel Dennett’s talk from the 2012 Global Atheist Convention which took place here in Melbourne back in April, in which he discussed how to tell whether or not you are an atheist. Although he didn’t mention it specifically, I suspect that he would agree that if you go to church primarily for a sense of belonging and acceptance from your fellow humans, then you might be an atheist…

 

[JDaniel]

My understanding is that all possibilities exist or possibly exist somewhere. We observe ourselves precisely because we require it.

Norain:

This reminds me of the question, What’s beyond the surface of last scattering? I wonder how we’d ever find out?

I post there too. I’m not a fan of infinite regress. I just mention it since atheists tend to refer to it repeatedly, like an infinite regress.

Repetition does not make certainty. Most intelligent atheists don’t make the infinite regress claim. There are a number of intelligent atheists in these fora. You’ll see, from them, other good arguments, but, not that one.

The physical laws started everything, I think. Either they are the mind of God, or God himself.

We are told by the Church that Creation is a result of God’s “thought” and “will.” I have no doubt that He included regularities that we could consider physical laws.

Ha! Finally I know how to split quotes, lol.

Congrats!

God bless,
jd

 

[ReapReason]

I’m not entirely sure you understood my question. But that is perhaps the fault of my phrasing.

I’ll attempt to break this down into some sub-questions - first, and perhaps most importantly, what exactly do you believe humans are? Is a configuration of matter and energy that manifests thought, intellect, imagination, creativity and empathy, that goes through all the biological processes of birth, growth, reproduction and eventual death, a human being if it happens to belong to the species Homo sapiens? Or does humanity, human experience, as such, require something more than these physical, biological aspects?

Isn’t that what you meant by any meaning or purpose being ‘illusory’? That if the physical manifestations are all that exist, then our imagination and our intellect and our creativity and our empathy are just biological processes, and not “real”? If so, why aren’t they “real” if they’re biological processes?

Because there is no true self will or self reflection, or empathy, rational or otherwise, if each thought is simply the firing of neural processes in the brain. Its completely deterministic and thus there is no singular “i” at the root of these thoughts or actions in terms of a cause. All the thoughts in your brain would be merely the inevitable sum total of physical processes.

It is simply sophistry to pretend that this is in fact true about human beings.

 

[norain]

This reminds me of the question, What’s beyond the surface of last scattering? I wonder how we’d ever find out?

When you say “find out”, I assume you mean more specifically, find out the truth. I believe there are no absolute truths. Just consistency.

You’ll see, from them, other good arguments, but, not that one.

I look forward to more meaningful discussions. Been only here a few days and I learned something big already. Not from one of the posters but looking up a reconciliatory answer to one of mine, responded to by another.

We are told by the Church that Creation is a result of God’s “thought” and “will.” I have no doubt that He included regularities that we could consider physical laws.

What you call regularities are what I refer to as consistency. Our brain is designed precisely to connect the dots in reality, create abstractions from entities. Logic, as I said elsewhere is tightly bound to the physical laws. God cannot violate logic since logic is part of his nature.

God bless!

 

[JDaniel]

I’m not entirely sure you understood my question. But that is perhaps the fault of my phrasing.

I’ll attempt to break this down into some sub-questions - first, and perhaps most importantly, what exactly do you believe humans are?

Sair:

I believe humans are configurations of “continuous space” delineated by dimensionless “point particles”. Matter is nothing but space when we consider that the atom is made up of electrons, that are “point particles,” and a nucleus,which consists of protons and neutrons; and protons and neutrons are made up of quarks, all of which are “point particles”. Therefore, matter is made up of nothing but “points.”

Is a configuration of matter and energy that manifests thought, intellect, imagination, creativity and empathy, that goes through all the biological processes of birth, growth, reproduction and eventual death, a human being if it happens to belong to the species Homo sapiens? Or does humanity, human experience, as such, require something more than these physical, biological aspects?

Not “if it happens to belong to the species Homo sapiens.” This is merely how we humans organize our knowledge of that which we perceive as “things”. Moreover, I do not believe that such things as “intellect, imagination, creativity and empathy,” and “reproduction” and “death” are merely “physical and biological”.

I believe that the space that permeates the “empty” places (in between physical and material stuff, in between protons and neutrons, in between electrons and nuclei) is the spiritual component of reality. So, yes, I think you can see that I believe humans are more than “physical and biological” things.

Isn’t that what you meant by any meaning or purpose being ‘illusory’? That if the physical manifestations are all that exist, then our imagination and our intellect and our creativity and our empathy are just biological processes, and not “real”?

Quite the contrary. I believe that precisely because we are “point particles” immersed in God’s Mind, our “Reality” is given to us.The only thing that we can claim as our closest personal possession is our free will to commit “sin”. Everything else that we perceive is hologramic. Along the path of our “growth” and “maturity” we learned to see (and “believe”) those things as reality. God causes everything: "Treating of the Will of God St. Thomas, following St. Augustine, teaches that it is the cause of all that exists. The Psalmist tells us that “all that the Lord wills He does in heaven and on earth, in the seas and in all the deeps.” - St.Thomas, Sum. p. 1, q. 19, a. 4; St. Augustine, De Gen. 2 Ps. 134:6

If so, why aren’t they “real” if they’re biological processes? Is a spiritual aspect actually part of the definition of these qualities?

What does it mean to be “real?” Is a lattice of dimensionless point particles immersed in " continuous space" Reality? Well, if it is regarded as reality then, I guess, it is reality (at least, to us).

And if they’re illusory, how would we know from within the illusion?

That’s the point! We couldn’t . . . unless it was revealed to us in some way and we kept our eyes open.

If we suppose, from within this illusion, that there must be a non-illusory entity that created and sustains us and gives our apparent existence meaning and purpose, what’s to say that this entity has any substantial existence?

That is the dilemma of “illusion.” There is still the “subject.” But, if the subject is also part of the illusion, then there must be that which is still outside of the illusion. The illusion can’t exist without the illusion provider, in much the same way that true nothingness cannot exist.without a “place” in which it can exist.

If an illusion imagines an entity…um, well, you see my point.

But, if an illusion is the subject of the illusion, then it must carry some weight of being that nothing else in the illusion can claim. Remember, it must be the sole subject of the illusion and as such, it can take part in the illusion, but it can’t itself be illusory. Illusions are null and void until and unless a subject postulates them into existence. IOW, the minute the subject turns around, the illusory junk disappears - and may never, ever re-appear.

But, “illusion,” per se, is not the focal point of my belief. It is merely how I describe the manner in which we perceive what we call “reality,” in analogic terms. Actually, I tend to agree with Yppop that what we perceive is probably more like a hologram. A hologram has hologramic content and in that sense possesses a visual “substrate.” But, it is also perceived by us as being movie-like, IOW, a perceptic fiction.

God bless,
jd

 

[John_Martin]

Sair:

Is a configuration of matter and energy that manifests thought, intellect, imagination, creativity and empathy, that goes through all the biological processes of birth, growth, reproduction and eventual death, a human being if it happens to belong to the species Homo sapiens? Or does humanity, human experience, as such, require something more than these physical, biological aspects?
I believe humans are configurations of “continuous space” delineated by dimensionless “point particles”. Matter is nothing but space when we consider that the atom is made up of electrons, that are “point particles,” and a nucleus,which consists of protons and neutrons; and protons and neutrons are made up of quarks, all of which are “point particles”. Therefore, matter is made up of nothing but “points.”
Not “if it happens to belong to the species Homo sapiens.” This is merely how we humans organize our knowledge of that which we perceive as “things”. Moreover, I do not believe that such things as “intellect, imagination, creativity and empathy,” and “reproduction” and “death” are merely “physical and biological”.

I believe that the space that permeates the “empty” places (in between physical and material stuff, in between protons and neutrons, in between electrons and nuclei) is the spiritual component of reality. So, yes, I think you can see that I believe humans are more than “physical and biological” things.

If I am reading Aquinas correctly (I believe I am), the human intellect is not perceived by the senses, not available to human perception, and only known to exist through reasoning about how we know things. It is an assertion (not a self evident sensible thing) by Aquinas, et. al., that the intellect “is”, that the soul “is”, that the will “is”, and an assertion that the intellect and will make use of (and direct) the “sensitive” aspects of man to understand and to drive physical reality to equal what is understood.

“Holograms” and phantasms and reasoning are purposely directed by something un-sensed, un-experienced, by bodily or physical perception. The soul, the Intellect, the Will, do not reside in matter / point particles, nor in space.

It is something unseen, unsensed, that knows, and the thoughts of the mind or words spoken are servants of that unseen and unsensed center of a person who knows.

John Martin

 

[John_Martin]

This is a very interesting perspective, primarily because it shows a very nonspecific account of what people understand by religious experience.

It sounds like what you are saying is that God, understood as being one and the same with Jesus, is actually the experience of community and human interaction that comes from participating in religious observance.

There are many ways people can experience a sense of community - attending church is just one of them. I have been watching Daniel Dennett’s talk from the 2012 Global Atheist Convention which took place here in Melbourne back in April, in which he discussed how to tell whether or not you are an atheist. Although he didn’t mention it specifically, I suspect that he would agree that if you go to church primarily for a sense of belonging and acceptance from your fellow humans, then you might be an atheist…

No, you actually are encountering God when you encounter the Church. The Church is a family (or as you say, community) only because God is a family (Father and Son and the Love done to each other). The Church is literally God present in front of you.

John Martin

 

[jc4751]

Catholics are not telling you “truths” about God to get you to accept those “truths”, to believe a doctrine.

If you have come in contact with the Church, you have come in contact with Jesus. If you have spent time with the Church, you are spending time with Jesus. If you are accepted into the Church, you become one of the People and a member of Jesus himself so that when people come in contact with you they are meeting Jesus.

People then and now did not join the Church to worship a god sitting in heaven, they joined the Church to be with the present Jesus, as physically close to him as his first disciples were. We walk with him, live with him, eat and drink of him, and breathe with him. If you hear us, you are actually and literally hearing him.

John Martin

I’d also mention that apostolic succession – we’re being ministered to by people who are the latest in a lineage going back to people who were Jesus’ closest followers. It always is sobering for me to consider that.

 

[jc4751]

Many of us from religious backgrounds eventually turn away from God. Ironically, many of us from atheist backgrounds eventually turn to God.

Very true. I was raised agnostic until my mid to late teens, and I see many “cradle Catholics” who do not understand/accept/acknowledge the importance of faith in their lives and leave it for worldly pursuits.

 

[jc4751]

By the way, I was recently reading about the Gould/Dawkins debate over gene-centered evolution and the thought occurred to me – which comes first, the genotype or the phenotype?

 

[JDaniel]

If I am reading Aquinas correctly (I believe I am), the human intellect is not perceived by the senses, not available to human perception, and only known to exist through reasoning about how we know things. It is an assertion (not a self evident sensible thing) by Aquinas, et. al., that the intellect “is”, that the soul “is”, that the will “is”, and an assertion that the intellect and will make use of (and direct) the “sensitive” aspects of man to understand and to drive physical reality to equal what is understood.

“Holograms” and phantasms and reasoning are purposely directed by something un-sensed, un-experienced, by bodily or physical perception. The soul, the Intellect, the Will, do not reside in matter / point particles, nor in space.

John:

I tend to think that they do reside (defining that word as widely as possible) in configurations of point particles and continuous space. They must be coterminous with each and every infinitesimal thing, whether energy or matter, within any such configuration. It is precisely that super-affinity that allows absolute control possible. The soul is more complex and I won’t try to explain it at this time. (In fact, you can read through this to get a better explanation of “soul.” Unfortunately this theory is not mine, but, fortunately, Yppop is still with us to answer our questions, and respond to our posts.)

It is something unseen, unsensed, that knows, and the thoughts of the mind or words spoken are servants of that unseen and unsensed center of a person who knows.

I agree.

God bless,
jd

 

[John_Martin]

John:

I tend to think that they do reside (defining that word as widely as possible) in configurations of point particles and continuous space. They must be coterminous with each and every infinitesimal thing, whether energy or matter, within any such configuration. It is precisely that super-affinity that allows absolute control possible. The soul is more complex and I won’t try to explain it at this time. (In fact, you can read through this to get a better explanation of “soul.” Unfortunately this theory is not mine, but, fortunately, Yppop is still with us to answer our questions, and respond to our posts.)

Well, what I see in Aquinas is that

• this soul is “simple”, rather than “composite”,
• in act, and
• not material (not composed of any of the material of physical reality into a configured composition), and
• not in Time, other than the fact that it is the form for, and united to, this body,
• animating this body, such that this body is the sensitive interface to this person (this soul) in Time providing for interface with other objective (material) reality (thus “relationship” and knowledge of things other than this person)

If the soul were a confguration of point particles in continuous space,

• then it would be material reality and would cease to be if material reality ceased, which would be saying that the soul is corruptible.
• Then the “whole soul” would not be present in all parts of the body, but dispersed in the contuous space of the body
• And, another thought, that when “separated from the body” at death, if it remains a living soul though the body is dead, it would still be in that continuous space, flowing with that space as it moves from now to now.

It seems the real question is whether there is reality, being, that is neither material nor spatial nor temporal. I see Aquinas believing that; and if I am not mistaken, in the link I see an attempt to explain the being of all things within a material or temporal context.

John Martin

 

[norain]

I have been watching Daniel Dennett’s talk from the 2012 Global Atheist Convention which took place here in Melbourne back in April, in which he discussed how to tell whether or not you are an atheist. Although he didn’t mention it specifically, I suspect that he would agree that if you go to church primarily for a sense of belonging and acceptance from your fellow humans, then you might be an atheist…

Strange that Dennett would come up with such a crazy idea as that. But wait, if an atheist knows of such things as morals, justice, good, and bad, a necessary code of conduct which governs all things sentient, then maybe the atheist isn’t as atheistic as he thinks…

Touche.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

Strange that Dennett would come up with such a crazy idea as that. But wait, if an atheist knows of such things as morals, justice, good, and bad, a necessary code of conduct which governs all things sentient, then maybe the atheist isn’t as atheistic as he thinks…

I’m inclined to think that people unnecessarily associate the word “atheist” with those things that are antithetical to the attributes that you just listed (morals, justice, so on). You’ll find that ideas on these morals and other such things are not limited to people of any specific set of religions and instead seems to be something that many humans are familiar with.

 

[norain]

I’m inclined to think that people unnecessarily associate the word “atheist” with those things that are antithetical to the attributes that you just listed (morals, justice, so on). You’ll find that ideas on these morals and other such things are not limited to people of any specific set of religions and instead seems to be something that many humans are familiar with.

Oh yeah, that’s right. Morals, justice and so on just sprang out of total randomness. My bad, sorry!

 

[norain]

I’m inclined to think that people unnecessarily associate the word “atheist” with those things that are antithetical to the attributes that you just listed (morals, justice, so on). You’ll find that ideas on these morals and other such things are not limited to people of any specific set of religions and instead seems to be something that many humans are familiar with.

Actually, I thought exactly the opposite. That is, we’re actually much more similar than we are different.

 

[interestedman]

Oh yeah, that’s right. Morals, justice and so on just sprang out of total randomness. My bad, sorry!

Are you suggesting morals and justice came from religion? I disagree.

 

[SuperLuigi]

I miss feeling comfortable with the way things were going. “Everything happens for a reason” is a mantra that can’t really be reconciled with a world view without some sort of God. It was calming believing that something bigger was always looking out for me. It was nice praying at night as a way to unwind and relay my thoughts to an all loving being.

But believing in God is not something you can just choose to do. I have come to the conclusion that it is very unlikely that there is a God and unless some world changing thing happened, I doubt that will change.

People say “you just have to open up your heart and God will open up to you” or things like that. In my eyes this is just a way of saying “you just have to be open to believing in God and your brain will do the rest.”

But it was nice when everything happened for a reason. Life was a little less stressful.

If you have really come to that conclusion, would you really be missing certain things?