Is religion egocentric?

[ignatius777]

Of course not. It’s your not understanding it that makes it true. And you obviously did not comprehend my point, as you continue to demonstrate:

Yes, nothing fundamental has changed. There have been changes in the accidentals (changing a banana for a donut, or changing an ideal to be cool for an ideal to be holy), but the essentials, the fundamentals, the underlying pattern and motivation, remain the same.

You seem to be under the impression that there is a contradiction in saying that “something changed” but “nothing fundamental changed.” Perhaps you are not familiar with the word “fundamental.”

Funny you should mention that. You might find interesting my contributions to this very old thread on here: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=439055

Of course, I don’t expect you to actually read through my posts there because rationally understanding and responding to opposing points of view doesn’t seem to be something you’re very good at. But it would be good practice for you.

Correct!!! FUNDEMENTALLY nothing has changed which means they are the SAME. You mean to tell me here and now that you believe saying SOMETHING HAS CHANGED means the same thing as NOTHING FUNDEMENTALLY CHANGED??? Please tell me you are kidding!! Now you see why I dont read everything you write

 

[Pieman333272]

It doesn’t always. Sometimes it does, and sometimes it doesn’t. Sometimes following your own needs and desires at the expense of others – like, for example, developing a superior product and crushing the competition in the market, allowing your superior product to come into popular use – is good for society. And sometimes it isn’t.

All I’m saying is that, ultimately, people are driven by their desires, even their desires to feel good about being “good people,” get a “reward” in heaven, or feel good about “obeying” some kind of obligation that they think exists.

I’m further saying that, ultimately, this kind of approach – which is fundamentally no different than trying to be a “cool” person to feel good – isn’t going to satisfy because it’s all about striving toward things outside of you.

Real spiritual progress is about getting rid of these illusions – all of them, including the one about trying to be “cool” and the one about trying to be “holy.”

OK, I was asking out of curiosity, not trying to refute your post.

I must disagree with you that even selfless acts have selfish motives behind them. I’m willing to agree that some are, but a good percentage - religious or secular - are only about helping others. I mean, why would somebody spend their entire life running a small soup kitchen to feed a bunch of people, most of whom probably won’t pay them back in any way, shape, or form? If it’s for glory or fame, there are much better ways to get it, and if there’s some plot to gain money out of it, there are much better ways of doing that too. Even if you say it’s to bring joy or peace to yourself, that usually comes after you decide to help the people honestly. Or did I misunderstand what you were saying earlier?

Also, I think, from research, that there are forms of meditation which do revolve around trying to connect with something on the outside of yourself, though you could argue that that is under a different category.

Have a nice day.

 

[rben20]

I’m guessing it comes down to fulfillment but what is proper? Theists will claim who could fulfill adequately but God? Atheists will say many different things as it is subjective. Fulfillment is not wrong or selfish, it is a calling and a push. It’s built into the human for a reason. The real question is what ultimately fulfills I believe.

 

[AntiTheist]

I’m willing to agree that some are, but a good percentage - religious or secular - are only about helping others. I mean, why would somebody spend their entire life running a small soup kitchen to feed a bunch of people, most of whom probably won’t pay them back in any way, shape, or form? If it’s for glory or fame, there are much better ways to get it, and if there’s some plot to gain money out of it, there are much better ways of doing that too. Even if you say it’s to bring joy or peace to yourself, that usually comes after you decide to help the people honestly. Or did I misunderstand what you were saying earlier?

In the example you give, I would say that a person who spends his entire life running a soup kitchen would not spend an entire lifetime doing it unless that person found it, on some level, enjoyable and fulfilling.

Incidentally, examples like these demonstrate why the concept of a god is irrelevant to moral behavior – someone who enjoys running a soup kitchen is going to enjoy it and do it whether he believes in a god or not.

Now, certainly, a person can loathe the idea of charity in every way, shape, and form and simply force himself to do charitable actions because he thinks he has an obligation to do so (although I think such cases are much rarer than you seem to think) – but even in these situations, he’s “getting something” out of it: a sense that he has fulfilled what he perceives as a responsibility and/or that his actions with be meriticious in the eyes of his friends, neighbors, the people he helps, or the god he worships.

Don’t misunderstand me, though: I’m not trying to say that the selfishness underlying all human activities takes anything away from charitable actions or means that people shouldn’t be charitable or means that all actions are the same (despite the, ahem, fundamental similarity in regard to motivation). I’m just pointing out something that should be more or less obvious: people generally do things because they want to, and even if you apply pressure to them, they’ll obey because they want to obey (and want to reap the rewards of obedience).

Also, I think, from research, that there are forms of meditation which do revolve around trying to connect with something on the outside of yourself, though you could argue that that is under a different category.

I do put those practices under a different category. “Meditation,” the way I use the word, is about getting rid of all those desires that usually drive our actions.

Have a nice day.

Same to you,

 

[Pieman333272]

In the example you give, I would say that a person who spends his entire life running a soup kitchen would not spend an entire lifetime doing it unless that person found it, on some level, enjoyable and fulfilling.

The joy the find is on selfless motives - solely on helping others, and those peoples’ gratitude. While people may start soup kitchens based on personal experience, I have yet to hear of one where it was started for personal gain - that was received as a “bonus”, so to speak.

Incidentally, examples like these demonstrate why the concept of a god is irrelevant to moral behavior – someone who enjoys running a soup kitchen is going to enjoy it and do it whether he believes in a god or not.

That is off-topic to an extent, but you can do charitable activities without belief in God. But theism would give one further reasons, besides salvation and damnation, I might add, to do this.

Now, certainly, a person can loathe the idea of charity in every way, shape, and form and simply force himself to do charitable actions because he thinks he has an obligation to do so (although I think such cases are much rarer than you seem to think) – but even in these situations, he’s “getting something” out of it: a sense that he has fulfilled what he perceives as a responsibility and/or that his actions with be meriticious in the eyes of his friends, neighbors, the people he helps, or the god he worships.

Right. No disagreement there, if they hate it in the first place and there’s no significant reason to change, I think there is some selfish motive behind it. Not that that’s a bad thing.

Don’t misunderstand me, though: I’m not trying to say that the selfishness underlying all human activities takes anything away from charitable actions or means that people shouldn’t be charitable or means that all actions are the same (despite the, ahem, fundamental similarity in regard to motivation). I’m just pointing out something that should be more or less obvious: people generally do things because they want to, and even if you apply pressure to them, they’ll obey because they want to obey (and want to reap the rewards of obedience).

OK, I understand.

 

[mellestad]

Yea, it is an interesting question.

How technical/philosophical/neurological are you being? You can easily argue that everything anyone does is egocentric, religion being no exception. Even ‘selfless’ acts are motivated by some sort of personal desire…that is the core of motivation and without motivation you wouldn’t be doing anything.

Or are you asking in a more generic sense, as in, is religion selfish in a culturally defined way?

 

[Luke_K]

Fundamentally, everything that people do is for the benefit of the self. Even the most “selfless” acts really boil down to your desire to do them – or your desire to obey a perceived obligation to do them – in expectation of some result, if only the result of feeling good about yourself and getting to think about how oh so holy and humble and selfless you are.

Now what I say above isn’t confined specifically to religious people. Non-religious people also do “selfless” things for selfish reasons. And non-religious people too substitute non-material things (“I’m going to improve myself!” or “I’m going to dedicate myself to a cause!”) for material things, all in an effort to feel better.

The wiser folks eventually realize that chasing things outside of yourself will never really bring you satisfaction, and that’s the whole purpose of meditation, which I just made a really long post about elsewhere on this site. Essentially, the point of meditation is to drop all of those desires and to just sit and to be, as you are.

Every human action is indeed directed toward something we think is good. A Christian performing an act of charity obviously knows that what he’s doing is good for the other person and himself. We would in fact be sinning if we did something that was in hatred of ourselves.

Catholic theology recognizes that sin is a manifestation of disordered affection for created things (which is everything except God). We can certainly enjoy the good things that God has created, but not at a level greater than our love for him or in a way contrary to his laws. If a person does a charitable act for his own sake, then that’s obviously not getting him closer to God. If a person does a charitable act out of a feeling of duty, and simply recognizes that God looks with favor upon people who do those things, then there is nothing wrong with that. It’s just a recognition of the truth of the scenario. Each individual is created with dignity in the image of God just like everyone else, and each individual is made for a heavenly reward just like everyone else. But we get that reward by serving others, sometimes at the expense of our own earthly comfort.

 

[rturner76]

Quote:
Originally Posted by AntiTheist

The wiser folks eventually realize that chasing things outside of yourself will never really bring you satisfaction, and that’s the whole purpose of meditation, which I just made a really long post about elsewhere on this site. Essentially, the point of meditation is to drop all of those desires and to just sit and to be, as you are.

I love meditation from a “religious” stand point. When I pray, I am usually asking something, when I meditate, I listen for an answer.

Many, basically all of the old Eastern thought what enlightenment from within. Look withing for the answer. When I see the Monks pray and meditate daily, it would seem like they are doing just that. Asking and listening for an answer. Many people equate this with your higher wisdom or higher level of thought. I believe the cause and effect of the action is still the same.

Many concepts I find in religion are explained other ways also. Just another name for a same or similar phenomenon.[BIBLEDRB][/BIBLEDRB]

 

[fhansen]

Inspired by a post on another thread, I figured I’d bring this up as I hear it enough. Often times, a non-religious person argues that religion is egocentric, based around self-fulfillment and an attempt to convince oneself that life has meaning. I also hear that apologists who argue for God do it based on being right… so, do these claims hold up? Or is such not the case? Hmm?

I think, if we’re honest, the desire to orient ourselves to that which makes us happiest-which is at least kind a tacit admission that we’re not necessarily as happy as we’d like to be-is the plight of man. And all our endeavors directly or indirectly aim towards that goal. I think GK Chesterton said that whenever a man enters a brothel, he’s looking for God. This is from the Catechism:

**1718 The Beatitudes respond to the natural desire for happiness. This desire is of divine origin: God has placed it in the human heart in order to draw man to the One who alone can fulfill it:

We all want to live happily; in the whole human race there is no one who does not assent to this proposition, even before it is fully articulated.13

How is it, then, that I seek you, Lord? Since in seeking you, my God, I seek a happy life, let me seek you so that my soul may live, for my body draws life from my soul and my soul draws life from you.14

God alone satisfies.15

2548 Desire for true happiness frees man from his immoderate attachment to the goods of this world so that he can find his fulfillment in the vision and beatitude of God. "The promise [of seeing God] surpasses all beatitude. . . . In Scripture, to see is to possess. . . . Whoever sees God has obtained all the goods of which he can conceive."344 **

 

[GreggAlvarez]

Often times, a non-religious person argues that religion is egocentric,

I will just defend Christianity here, as I cannot speak for other religions. How is a complete giving of oneself to another our of pure love “egocentric”?

based around self-fulfillment

I will assume that they mean that the intent of the “self-fulfillment” is actually an act of selfishness in getting what you want out of life. Again, this goes back to what the pious Christian is actually doing. As Christians, we are called to walk in that will prepared for us. Of course, a non-religious will consider that absurd as “there is no god”. But, then it all comes down to what the actual reality is. All I will say is that we submit to God’s will (or at least, we should).

and an attempt to convince oneself that life has meaning.

As if they do not do the exact opposite by convincing themselves that life does NOT have meaning. This is what I like about debating the non-religious. Most of the time, I can reverse the statement and show the plausibility of the contrary notion so that way they can see the flaws in the argument. But, some arguments cannot be done that way.

Anyway, in order for us to convince ourselves that life has meaning, life has to have meaning. This is an intrinsic quality of Life as we know it. The existence of God is a different story because He is an external existence and therefore the “convincing oneself” part is purely based on arguing with yourself (in either case of convincing yourself that He exists or convincing yourself that He does not exist). The meaning of Life however is not extrinsic. One needs only to look at reality.

Obviously, my position is that there is a meaning of Life, but with good reason, sound logic and rational argument. The point of this response was to show that nobody needs to “convince oneself” because that would suppose that every single one of us is deluded in thinking that there is no meaning of Life. The delusion is to think the opposite, but very few people do, even atheists. If any atheist reads this, take note that I never said “ultimate” meaning of life because you probably missed that. Although I certainly believe there is an ultimate meaning of life with awesome reasons, that is for discussion if anybody questions it.

I also hear that apologists who argue for God do it based on being right… so, do these claims hold up? Or is such not the case? Hmm?

“Being right” is not egocentric or selfish at all. Atheist “apologists” do the same thing and assume their position as true when objecting. The only difference is that our apologists actually are right. But, even THAT fact will be debated. It is a vicious circle.

Anyway, those claims do not hold up because you can reverse the claim and say the same exact thing about them except with a contrary notion.

Egocentric - They will do one of two things: they will give to others, be charitable and such or they will be selfish and not think about anybody else. If they attack the first one, then they are being egocentric as an irreligious person. If the second one, then it is quite obvious that they are even more egocentric than those whom they are attacking. Of course, there are some pious Christians unfortunately who do evangelize for selfish reasons, but their Creator will give them what is owed to them.

Self-fulfillment - They are doing the same exact thing by getting in what they can before they die because they believe their own existence will cease. Whether they are “living the good life” or just seeking pleasure, wealth, power etc… They are doing the same thing by trying to fulfill their own journey

“Convince oneself” - This should go without saying that they do convince themselves that life does not have meaning when most are charitable in their actions anyway. They intellectually convince themselves that life has no meaning when all humanity does is search for meaning. Atheists do this. Christians do this. We all do this. In any case, there is convincing of self done on the accusers side also.

 

[GreggAlvarez]

Anyway, the thing about religion – and this is what people usually mean when they say that religion is “egocentric” – is that in a lot of cases, it seems like the religion 1) offers fantasy rewards for “selfless” behavior and 2) allows humans to project a self-image into the cosmos and call it “god.”

Agreed. That indeed is what religion seems like to the non-religious

Point (1) above should be pretty clear to most readers, so I’ll address point (2) briefly. In a lot of cases, it seems like the god that people worship is a giant version of their ego-ideal, built up from the values they’ve internalized from culture and tradition and that they see as desirable.

Again, it does seem like that to the outsider.

For example, a lot of people are taught from a young age that it’s good to forgive people and that god is all-forgiving, so they take the thought “I should be a forgiving person” and project it onto the universe in the form of an omnipotent being that forgives everyone who asks. God, in this scenario, is a word for the qualities that the believer would like to have, which the believer has deluded himself are somehow absolute and applicable for everyone, not just him.

Ok… This is not what happens. I am not deluded. The delusion is that you think it works like this.

It works the other way, too. People who hate gays and have been taught that it’s somehow “wrong” to be gay can push that hate off on to an imaginary divine source. “Oh, I don’t hate gays – those are just god’s rules…”

Admittedly, some Christians take this way too far. Makes me question whether or not they are Christians. God nor us hate gays. It is the sexuality of homosexuality that is condemned. Just like the fornicating heterosexual… The sin is what is hated. Not the sinner.

If you read the thread I just posted on Zen meditation, you’ll see that one of the goals of meditation is to shut up your mind – for just a little while – and prevent it from telling you stories. Religion of this variety is one gigantic, egotistical story that gets in the way of clearly seeing reality for what it is.

Christian meditation shuts my mind up too. It is far away from the practice of Zen meditation. Christian meditation actually shuts my mind up for a whole day, which is why I do it everyday. I am much calmer that way.

Anyway, when you say “Religion of this variety”, I will assume you mean Christianity. I will agree that it is gigantic. Of course, I will object to the “egotistical story” part because it is hardly egotistical for us to say that there is a possibility of us to suffer eternal torment disobedience or even to say that most of the Heaven-goers (for lack of better terms) are to suffer temporal punishment before being crowned with life. The only egotistical part is to make an unsubstantiated claim that something is egotistical without looking at what the belief actually is.

As far as the “gets in the way of clearly seeing reality for what it is”… Well… That is another unjustified claim for another thread. All I will say is that I see reality as it is very clearly. So, that truth should shed some light on your false claim. But, of course, you will question my statement anyway because atheists are not fond of trusting Christian statements. (Admittedly, some Christians are pretty deluded, but this goes for some atheists as well and I know many atheists who would agree.)

Anyway, if “Religion of this variety” does NOT refer to Christianity, then just scratch my above response.

 

[GreggAlvarez]

Of course you can. You are just confusing yourself because you think that selfishness is somehow bad.

Selfishness is bad. What is good about selfishness?

 

[GreggAlvarez]

All I’m saying is that, ultimately, people are driven by their desires, even their desires to feel good about being “good people,” get a “reward” in heaven, or feel good about “obeying” some kind of obligation that they think exists.

Something tells me you think theists are irrational in their beliefs.

Indeed we are driven by desire, but even our definitions of “desire” differ greatly.

I’m further saying that, ultimately, this kind of approach – which is fundamentally no different than trying to be a “cool” person to feel good – isn’t going to satisfy because it’s all about striving toward things outside of you.

The meaning here is nebulous. Well, to me anyway… Can you please explain the “striving toward things outside of you”?

Real spiritual progress is about getting rid of these illusions – all of them, including the one about trying to be “cool” and the one about trying to be “holy.”

By “spiritual”, do you mean “spirit” as just something that separates the living from corpses or one of those “nothings” that your signature implies? If the former, then it should get rid of the illusion that goodness and especially holiness are illusions. “Real spiritual progess” should incorporate the pushing away of evil. The farther away from evil you get, the closer you get to goodness and holiness. You might be one that claims that evil is an illusion. If so, then that is another can of worms.

Incidentally, examples like these demonstrate why the concept of a god is irrelevant to moral behavior – someone who enjoys running a soup kitchen is going to enjoy it and do it whether he believes in a god or not.

If it does demonstrate, then it is a very very bad demonstration (and superficially redundant in some ways). So bad that it is easily countered by the innate objective moral code and our tendency toward good and sympathy for poverty. Of course, that is another argument in the vicious circle. The concept of God (the Christian God) may be irrelevant to moral behavior. Concepts are just concepts and cannot do anything beyond being a concept. But, God Himself is completely relevant to moral behavior for the believer and unbeliever alike.

The fact that you mention “moral behavior” indicates that you are not one who claims that evil as an illusion. Are you?

See you around

 

[AntiTheist]

When I pray, I am usually asking something, when I meditate, I listen for an answer.

Well, the problem here is that “listening for an answer” isn’t an accurate description of meditation, at least not the way I use the word “meditation.”

If you’re listening for an answer, then you’re looking for something in particular – probably a solution to help ease your problems.

Meditation, at its core, is not about looking for anything in particular. It’s about dropping the desire to look for something in particular. It’s about dropping the idea that there are “problems” that need to be “solved.”

Meditation is looking at reality without the blinders of your usual thought patterns and actually, for once, looking at the world and yourself as they are. When you meditate, it’s just you and the world. No one’s going to be “answering” anything, nor does anyone need to. When you meditate, there’s nothing that needs answering – questions and answers are the realm of the mind, and meditation takes place when you get your mind to quiet down.

The practice itself is nothing more than just breathing, just sitting, just being and not indulging in daydreams of thinking about other things, reflecting on your “problems,” listening for “answers,” or anything else.

It’s nothing more than getting rid of all that and enjoying what’s left over – what’s left over is whole, is complete, is…is…

 

[AntiTheist]

Selfishness is bad. What is good about selfishness?

I didn’t say it was good, either. It’s neither “good” nor “bad.” The ideas “good” and “bad” are labels that the mind cooks up. Learning to look past these tricks of the mind is one of the first things you do when you meditate.

I wrote:“I’m further saying that, ultimately, this kind of approach * – which is fundamentally no different than trying to be a “cool” person to feel good – isn’t going to satisfy because it’s all about striving toward things outside of you.”

Gregg responded:

The meaning here is nebulous. Well, to me anyway… Can you please explain the “striving toward things outside of you”?

Certainly. We all spend most of our lives chasing objects. At first, when we’re kids, it’s toys. We think that if we just got that new red truck or that new spiderman comic, or whatever, that we’d be happy for the rest of our lives.

Some people never make it past this stage. They spend their whole life chasing things: clothes, cars, money, etc. No one thing ever really satisfies them, and the whole endeavor is an empty charade.

Some people wise up a bit and they start focusing on abstracts. They spend their whole life chasing ideas: a dream career, a dream partner, a dream hobby. Their ideas poison their lives: nothing that they ever have satisfies because it’s not the ideal, because there’s always something wrong with it, because it never lives up to the expectation.

Some people chase a religious idea: “If I could only be a good person, if I could only do God’s will (instead of mine!), then I’d be happy!” These people correctly see that just chasing things isn’t getting them anywhere, so they turn around and assume that if they chase insubstabtial ideas – which they have arbitrarily decided are “holy” or good in and of themselves – those ideals will bring them satisfaction.

I’m saying that all of the above is fundamentally exactly the same. Seeking to be “good” is going to wind up, in the long run, being almost exactly as disappointing and unsatisfying as seeking the spiderman comic book when you were ten.

So what’s the solution? The solution is to let go of all of these thoughts and ideals and recognize that nothing is going to make you ultimately happy or make all of your problems go away: this life is the only thing that you have, and the only reason you’re ever unhappy with it is because of the motions of your mind. The first step is to learn to see through the motions of your mind, and then, slowly, you stop being fooled by it.

Go look up my thread on Zen in the non-Catholic religions forum. It’ll contain much more detail.*

 

[rturner76]

Well, the problem here is that “listening for an answer” isn’t an accurate description of meditation, at least not the way I use the word “meditation.”

If you’re listening for an answer, then you’re looking for something in particular – probably a solution to help ease your problems.

Meditation, at its core, is not about looking for anything in particular. It’s about dropping the desire to look for something in particular. It’s about dropping the idea that there are “problems” that need to be “solved.”

While I’m meditating, I’m not actively looking for an answer to a specific prayer. I see it more like clearing out all the clutter in my mind so throughout my day I am more centered in truth or I feel I can listen for the truth without all the clutter and filters I put everything through. Clear the mind to be more open to an insight as some would describe it or inner wisdom. I choose to call it God but I believe inside everybody there is an inner truth so to speak, that meditation releases.

 

[davidv]

Well, the problem here is that “listening for an answer” isn’t an accurate description of meditation, at least not the way I use the word “meditation.”

If you’re listening for an answer, then you’re looking for something in particular – probably a solution to help ease your problems.

Meditation, at its core, is not about looking for anything in particular. It’s about dropping the desire to look for something in particular. It’s about dropping the idea that there are “problems” that need to be “solved.”

Meditation is looking at reality without the blinders of your usual thought patterns and actually, for once, looking at the world and yourself as they are. When you meditate, it’s just you and the world. No one’s going to be “answering” anything, nor does anyone need to. When you meditate, there’s nothing that needs answering – questions and answers are the realm of the mind, and meditation takes place when you get your mind to quiet down.

The practice itself is nothing more than just breathing, just sitting, just being and not indulging in daydreams of thinking about other things, reflecting on your “problems,” listening for “answers,” or anything else.

It’s nothing more than getting rid of all that and enjoying what’s left over – what’s left over is whole, is complete, is…is…

You have a very different definition of meditation then that of the Church.

II. MEDITATION

2705 Meditation is above all a quest. The mind seeks to understand the why and how of the Christian life, in order to adhere and respond to what the Lord is asking. The required attentiveness is difficult to sustain. We are usually helped by books, and Christians do not want for them: the Sacred Scriptures, particularly the Gospels, holy icons, liturgical texts of the day or season, writings of the spiritual fathers, works of spirituality, the great book of creation, and that of history the page on which the “today” of God is written.
2706 To meditate on what we read helps us to make it our own by confronting it with ourselves. Here, another book is opened: the book of life. We pass from thoughts to reality. To the extent that we are humble and faithful, we discover in meditation the movements that stir the heart and we are able to discern them. It is a question of acting truthfully in order to come into the light: “Lord, what do you want me to do?”
2707 There are as many and varied methods of meditation as there are spiritual masters. Christians owe it to themselves to develop the desire to meditate regularly, lest they come to resemble the three first kinds of soil in the parable of the sower.5 But a method is only a guide; the important thing is to advance, with the Holy Spirit, along the one way of prayer: Christ Jesus.
2708 Meditation engages thought, imagination, emotion, and desire. This mobilization of faculties is necessary in order to deepen our convictions of faith, prompt the conversion of our heart, and strengthen our will to follow Christ. Christian prayer tries above all to meditate on the mysteries of Christ, as in lectio divina or the rosary. This form of prayerful reflection is of great value, but Christian prayer should go further: to the knowledge of the love of the Lord Jesus, to union with him.

 

[GreggAlvarez]

I didn’t say it was good, either. It’s neither “good” nor “bad.” The ideas “good” and “bad” are labels that the mind cooks up. Learning to look past these tricks of the mind is one of the first things you do when you meditate.

I completely disagree with that. It is contrary to the reality we experience everyday. There is a good and bad. But, I am running low on time in the library. My mind cooks up nothing except for doubting that ever God existed and such. Those cooks are now long gone. More cooky-ness comes from wanting home-made flour tortillas in Kentucky.

Certainly. We all spend most of our lives chasing objects. At first, when we’re kids, it’s toys. We think that if we just got that new red truck or that new spiderman comic, or whatever, that we’d be happy for the rest of our lives.

Agreed.

Some people never make it past this stage. They spend their whole life chasing things: clothes, cars, money, etc. No one thing ever really satisfies them, and the whole endeavor is an empty charade.

Agreed.

Some people wise up a bit and they start focusing on abstracts. They spend their whole life chasing ideas: a dream career, a dream partner, a dream hobby. Their ideas poison their lives: nothing that they ever have satisfies because it’s not the ideal, because there’s always something wrong with it, because it never lives up to the expectation.

Agreed.

Some people chase a religious idea: “If I could only be a good person, if I could only do God’s will (instead of mine!), then I’d be happy!” These people correctly see that just chasing things isn’t getting them anywhere, so they turn around and assume that if they chase insubstabtial ideas – which they have arbitrarily decided are “holy” or good in and of themselves – those ideals will bring them satisfaction.

I disagree. This past week for me is a testament to the contrary reality of this statement. In any case, the point of Christianity is not to be a “good person”. And they are not insubstantial ideas.

I’m saying that all of the above is fundamentally exactly the same. Seeking to be “good” is going to wind up, in the long run, being almost exactly as disappointing and unsatisfying as seeking the spiderman comic book when you were ten.

Agreed. Minus the religion section.

So what’s the solution? The solution is to let go of all of these thoughts and ideals and recognize that nothing is going to make you ultimately happy or make all of your problems go away: this life is the only thing that you have, and the only reason you’re ever unhappy with it is because of the motions of your mind. The first step is to learn to see through the motions of your mind, and then, slowly, you stop being fooled by it.

There is a parallel to the Christian meditation here. The idea is very similar though.

Go look up my thread on Zen in the non-Catholic religions forum. It’ll contain much more detail.

Your explanation was just fine. Thanks for that. (And I am lazy.) Most people will not go into as much depth as you did. I would continue to elaborate, but the library is about to close. Of course, you probably already know the dispute. My position versus your position. The existence of God versus the non-existence of God.

 

[AntiTheist]

You have a very different definition of meditation then that of the Church.

Yes, I do. That’s the neat thing about defining terms – I can define my words in a very specific way so that you can known exactly what I mean by them.

 

[tonyrey]

The ideas “good” and “bad” are labels that the mind cooks up.

In that case whether your statements are true is highly doubtful, particularly:

The ideas “good” and “bad” are labels that the mind cooks up.