Mystery, Mythology, and the Atheist [Archive I]

Mageth

April 4, 2004, 12:51 AM

On this thread (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?p=1522023#post1522023), southernhybrid brought up Joseph Campbell and mythology, and Campbell's view of the use mythology has had, and still has, for humanity. In replying to her comments, I decided this would make a good OP for a thread to discuss what, if any, role mythology might play in an atheist's life. And in relation to that, what about "mystery" in an atheist's life? Can an atheist experience "transcendence", feel a sense of the "divine" when faced with the mystery and wonder of life, and of this universe?

To me, this is an important topic when seeking to understand how to live a positive live as an atheist. One criticism that some theists make of atheism is that it implies a "lack of meaning" or a "lack of purpose" in life. A typical response to this is that atheists obviously can and do find meaning and purpose in life. In the past, when replying to this accusation made by theists, I typically emphasized those meanings and purposes in a "small" way. Life is preferable to death, and I have my family and friends, my career, my hobbies, etc.. Lately, I've come to believe that it's possible for the atheist to seek meaning and purpose in more, for lack of a better term, "cosmic" terms. And, in my view, a "cosmic" meaning and purpose may be possible that is focused on humanity and thus may even be viewed as superior to the "meaning and purpose" provided by religions, which, of course, tend to focus those meanings and purposes on the wants and will of some other entity and not on humanity.

First, here's my reply to southernhybrid's comments:

Another atheist who has been known for embracing mythology is the late Joseph Campell. I have just started reading one of his books.

Out of curiosity, which one? I've read many of Campbell's books. An Open Life (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0060972955/internetinfidels/) (actually, by Michael Toms; a transcript of a series of iinterviews of Campbell by Toms which includes much of the material in the more well-known Power of Myth, but is much shorter) and Thou Art That: Transforming Religious Metaphor (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1577312023/internetinfidels/) are two of my favorites.

Campell thinks that mythology is extremely important to humanity and I think it will be interesting to learn more about his ideas.

Reading Campbell helped me quite a bit after my deconversion to start on a path to a happy, fulfilled life as an atheist. He opened up avenues for me to read, understand and appreciate mythology for what it is.

BTW, the core of Campbell's recommendations for living a happy and fulfilling life can be summed up in two phrases: "Follow your bliss" and "Thou art that".

Just because we lack a god belief, doesn't mean that we must be close minded as to why religion has been so important throughout history.

I agree. I've read, studied and learned more about religion, mythology, and even spirituality (and not necessarily supernatural spirituality, but human spirituality) since becoming an atheist than I ever did as a Christian, and have gained a much greater understanding and appreciation of the human quest for the "transcendant" or the "divine". An atheist can stand in awe and wonder before the universe, revel in the mysteries of life, and have a "spiritual" experience. In my opinion, an atheist can delve into mythology and seek out metaphrorical meanings that are relevant to the lives of non-believers as well as believers.

Perhaps we should try to be more understanding of those who believe in mythology in a literal way, rather than lump them all into one negative sterotype.

I agree that we need to be more understanding of those who take their mythologies literally, but at the same time, Campbell comes down pretty hard on those religions that treat myth as history, or as he sometimes says read texts intended as poetry as prose. According to my understanding of Campbell, by taking mythology literally, religions such as Christianity lose the true meaning, purpose, and benefits that the myths were meant to provide. He has little if anything good to say about the literalist religions, particularly the literalists forms of the Abrahamic religions (Judaism, Christianity, and Islam). The book Thou Art That, in particular, is directed at the Christian religion, and seeks to show those of that religion that they are mistakenly taking their religion's myths literally rather than metaphorically, and to direct them into a more fulfilling spiritual life.

----------------------------------------------------

A follow-up with some background information, and some questions:

After my "deconversion" about four years ago now, I turned completely away from any form of "spirituality" or mythological thinking. Largely due to my reading of Campbell's works (and the works of some other authors) over the last couple of years, and through conversations with a fellow atheist at work, I've since come to appreciate mythology, and to read mythologies (including the Bible) through totally different eyes. I've even started to read and think about the various concepts of God that humans have formed and put deep thought into over the millenia, and what those concepts may mean in regards to the human experience. In short, I find myself fascinated with mythology, including the concepts of God that mythologies typically include.

Now, part of my interest in these topics is academic (I seek to better understand why humans find mythology, religion, and God concepts so appealing); however, I'm also interested in learning more about what important roles mythology might fulfill for humans, if a new mythology to replace the old, outdated mythologies (e.g. the Bible) is necessary or desirable (it appears to me that, while many of us can get by just fine without a mythology, a large part of humanity may not be capable of that), and what form, if any, that new mythology might take (all topics of interest to Campbell).

In addition, Campbell and some other writers (e.g. Richard Elliott Friedman, in his fascinating book The Hidden Face of God (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/006062258X/internetinfidels/)) have opened the way for me to realize that it's possible for an atheist to have a "spiritual" life, to seek something akin to the "divine" in life and the universe (while not attributing that experience to a deity).

So, a couple of rather broad and open questions, and I'll try to keep them relevant to this forum:

1. Do you think an atheist can benefit from myth? Can myth be relevant and useful in a non-believer's life? (Think broadly about myth here; and I'm not referring to God-belief, of course).

2. Do you think an atheist can seek and/or experience the "spiritual" in life? Can an atheist seek and/or experience the "transcendant", even the "divine", in life and the universe while remaining an atheist?

3. Do you think an atheist can seek or find "cosmic" meaning/purpose in life? "Cosmic", here, is not well-defined, I admit. One such example of a "cosmic" meaning/purpose to hopefully illustrate what I'm getting at: one can view life as the highest form of order in the universe, emerging from the physical, and can view consciousness, particularly human consciousness, that has emerged from life as the emergent consciousness of the Universe; IOW, we are the consciousness of the Universe, we are the eyes and ears of the Universe.

I would answer in the affirmative to all three of my questions, BTW. And in regards to the last question, Friedman, in the third and last section of the book mentioned above, makes some interesting observations.

Semblance

April 4, 2004, 01:29 AM

I briefly read your post. My own thoughts:

Do you think an atheist can benefit from myth?

Myths can serve to highlight what the human species thinks is important, but beyond that have no meaning.

Can an atheist seek and/or experience the "transcendant", even the "divine"...

I don't see these as compatible with atheism.

...we are the consciousness of the Universe, we are the eyes and ears of the Universe.

That's just silliness, as bad as "God created us in his image" or "God created the universe for humans".

Mageth

April 4, 2004, 03:35 AM

Welcome, Semblance.

I briefly read your post. My own thoughts:

Do you think an atheist can benefit from myth?

Myths can serve to highlight what the human species thinks is important, but beyond that have no meaning.

First, myths serving to highlight what humans think is important sounds rather meaningful and important to me.

Second, I'm not sure what you mean by "have no meaning". I and others have certainly found significant metaphorical meaning in various myths. Myths can and do convey metaphorical meaning, significant metaphorical meaning, about the common human experience. And myths can and have been useful in many cultures to, for example, help people deal with moving to the various stages of life, from childhood, to adolescence, to adulthood, to old age, to death.

Can an atheist seek and/or experience the "transcendant", even the "divine"...

I don't see these as compatible with atheism.

I didn't make it clear that, in using those terms, I was not referring to a God of any sort. I guess putting them in quotes wasn't sufficient. As atheism is "lack of belief in god(s)", I don't see how seeking or experiencing something that transcends simple existence, seeking and experiencing the deep wonder of life and the universe, is incompatible with atheism.

...we are the consciousness of the Universe, we are the eyes and ears of the Universe.

That's just silliness, as bad as "God created us in his image" or "God created the universe for humans".

As I said, I was giving that as an example of one possible "cosmic" purpose/meaning an atheist might find. I've thought about it, but wouldn't say I buy into it in the way I stated it in the example.

Anyway, as far as we know, we are the highest consciousness in the universe. As far as we know, we are the only beings in the universe that are asking questions about the universe, its origins, and about life, ourselves, and our own origins. So what is exactly so "silly" about viewing ourselves as the eyes and ears of the universe, as the consciousness of the non-conscious physical universe from which we emerged? In a very real sense, we are. What else in the universe has observed and deduced from the cosmic evidence that the universe originated in a "big bang"? What else in the universe has speculated on what the final end of the universe will be? What else in the universe has collided particles in an accelerator and observed and formed theories of the nature of matter from the results? What else in the universe has theorized that time is relative? has developed quantum theory? has theorized the existence of black holes, and then looked for and discovered evidence of them? What else in the universe has looked at the history of a planet and the life found thereon and proposed scientific theories to explain the development of the planet and the life thereon? And yes, what else in the universe has seen the need to create myth to explain the universe, and then developed science to overturn many of those myths?

BTW, I don't see the example of the "cosmic" purpose I stated to be similar at all to either "God created us in his image" or "God created the universe for humans". In the example, I do not mean to imply that there is any deity or creator of any sort, or that the universe was "created for humans". Merely that we are here, by whatever means, and if the universe is to be studied and, hopefully, understood, as far as we know it's up to us to do it.

For grins, I'll give another example. A "cosmic" purpose for humans might be found in the goal to gain as much scientific knowledge of the universe as possible. I don't know about you, but I find much of what we already know (or, properly, have theorized), e.g. quantum theory, superstring theory, evolution, the big bang, and relativity, to be awe-inspiring, wonderful, and even mysterious.

And another example: the search for life in the universe, particularly intelligent life, could be viewed as a "higher purpose" for humanity.

And a related example: as far as we know, Earth holds the only life in the universe; life may be commonplace, rare, or non-existent in the universe except on Earth. We simply do not know which it is as of yet, and may not know for a long time. Thus, a "cosmic" purpose for humans may be for us to insure that life does not die out here on Earth, and even to seek to spread life in this galaxy and perhaps even beyond.

Hugo Holbling

April 4, 2004, 04:20 AM

If you want to understand the role of myth, Mageth, then i very strongly suggest you read this work (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0879232153/qid=1081068825/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/104-5093348-3819134?v=glance&s=books) - even if you find yourself disagreeing. Unfortunately most references to it online are associated with misunderstandings, but you can find a brief review of it and some excerpts here (http://fusionanomaly.net/hamletsmill.html).

southernhybrid

April 4, 2004, 09:00 AM

I'm glad to see that you started this thread. I have only read a about a third of the book, The Power of Myth which is a rehash of the late Joseph Campbell's 1980s interviews with Bill Moyer. I am totally fascinated and plan on reading more Campbell.

I have been an atheist for almost thirty years and while I am no student of mythology, I find myself agreeing with Campbell quite a bit. I have always considered myself a very spiritual person, in the nonsupernatural way. I get quite frustrated trying to explain that to atheists who don't get it, but I think that you ( Mageth ) gave some good examples. One must be open minded to understand how an atheist can have a spiritual side. Too many atheists are simply turned off by the traditional terms used by religion and I see that as part of the problem. Maybe we need some new words, but I am not bothered by sharing the words associated with religion, after all we are all humans before we're theists or atheists. Perhaps not everyone has the need or desire to explore this side of themselves. To each his/her own.

I have had a very happy and fulfilling life as an atheist but in the last few years, since cutting back my working hours significantly, I've had the opportunity to explore many areas that I didn't give much thought to before. For the past two years I have read numerous books on primatology, evolutionary psychology, neurology and anthropology, which tie very much into what Campbell has to say about the importance of mythology throughout the history of mankind. It's not to hard to consider the probability that we are hardwired for creating and/or needing myths.

I am starting to understand why Stephen Hawking says he believes in a methaphorical God. God as reason is one of the suggestions for a new myth that Campbell puts forth in the book I'm reading. I loved the way he wrote about the US, and how it was the first country to be based on the principles of reason. Too bad we have strayed so far from the original concepts of the founders. We really missed our chance on that one. I'm not in agreement with some of Campbell's ideas but feel his views certainly have a lot of value to contemporay atheists.

Some of my favorites from my limited reading of Campbell.

We need myths that will identify the individual not with his local group but with the planet.

What is a god? A god is a personification of a motivating power or a value system that functions in human life and in the universe--the powers of your own body and of nature. The myths are metaphorical of spiritual potentiality in the human being, and the same powers that animate our life animate the life of the world.

While I realize that Campbell doesn't think that any of the myths are literal, he seems pretty tolerant to those that take them literally, except when the myths are used to separate groups in harmful ways. He does an amazing job of pointing out the universal similarities in the myths. Too bad more religious literalists can't see that.

One more favorite quote, which is exactly what my own personal belief has been for many years.

People say that what we are all seeking is a meaning for life. I think that what we're seeking is the experience of being alive, so that our life experience on the purely physical plane will have resonances within our own innermost being and reality, so that we can actually feel the rapture of being alive.

Pretty cool stuff, imo. I'll leave you with those thoughts. It's a beautiful day here in heavenly Georgia and I'm about to go and experience the rapture of life and commune with nature for a bit. ;)

Semblance

April 4, 2004, 10:05 AM

catalyst

April 4, 2004, 11:00 AM

I agree. I've read, studied and learned more about religion, mythology, and even spirituality (and not necessarily supernatural spirituality, but human spirituality) since becoming an atheist than I ever did as a Christian, and have gained a much greater understanding and appreciation of the human quest for the "transcendant" or the "divine".

I would not mind seeing (reading) you expand on the differences between human and supernatural spirituality.

Mageth

April 4, 2004, 08:45 PM

First, myths serving to highlight what humans think is important sounds rather meaningful and important to me.

I was restricting the scope of the meaning. Myths tell us about one species that live on the surface on one planet in the universe. Myths tell us nothing about the universe.

No, myths aren't science, and I'm not saying they are. Myths don't tell us hard, literal facts about the universe. And they aren't intended to.

However, myths do provide a mechanism to describe metaphorically what we've learned about our existence in this universe, to convey metaphorically what we've perceived about our life and possibly even role in the universe. Even concepts of God can be understood as metaphorical expressions of the human experience. Fiction, poetry, art, and music, BTW, play a similar role. As does philosophy, IMO.

And myths can and have been useful in many cultures to, for example, help people deal with moving to the various stages of life, from childhood, to adolescence, to adulthood, to old age, to death.

Ends don't justify means.

What, exactly, is wrong with means that help people deal with moving to the various stages of life, from childhood, to adolescence, to adulthood, to old age, to death? What is wrong with myth that helps convey, through metaphor, our understanding of the human experience to people in terms that they can understand and relate to? Note that myth without the unpleasant parts of the "means" that I think you are referring to are possible, have existed in past cultures, and are possible even today.

These facts:

...as far as we know, we are the highest consciousness in the universe. As far as we know, we are the only beings in the universe that are asking questions about the universe, its origins, and about life, ourselves, and our own origins.

in no way leads to this silliness:

[we can view] ourselves as the eyes and ears of the universe, as the consciousness of the non-conscious physical universe from which we emerged? In a very real sense, we are.

IMO, I think those facts can indeed lead some to that metaphor, and that that metaphor can be useful for some. And I've read several authors speclulating along just such lines.

No, we aren't. Your conclusion doesn't follow. Why do you insist on making this claim?

If you read carefully, I think you'd see that I haven't been making that claim, but have posed that as an example of a metaphor that some might find useful in providing a sense of purpose or meaning to their existence. As such, what is wrong if someone wants to do that, as long as it's understood as metaphor?

I would assert that it is just as silly as saying "God cares about us". By which I mean that you assert it only because it makes you feel good.

I'm not asserting it. I'm not saying that it's a metaphor that any or all should accept. It's simply something I've been thinking about, and have read similar arguments along those lines by various authors, including some scientists, and that I've provided here by way of example.

But I see nothing wrong with someone speculating along those lines, or even accepting the metaphor that "we are the consciousness, the eyes and ears of the universe", if it serves some useful purpose to them, even if that purpose is making them feel "good". What's wrong with a metaphor that makes you feel good, if it otherwise does no harm? The argument that it is "silly" or "just as silly as asserting God" is not an argument against the metaphor or its possible usefulness, BTW. Asserting that something is "silly" doesn't carry any weight in an argument.

Mageth

April 4, 2004, 09:17 PM

I would not mind seeing (reading) you expand on the differences between human and supernatural spirituality.

Hmm, that's something to think about; I don't know if I've ever really tried to define the difference. The following is totally from me, and a bit off the cuff, so others may have a different way of distinguishing the two:

Supernatural spirituality posits or depends upon a "supernatural" spirit that is generally portrayed as the true essence of our being, and is in a sense separate from the body, though linked to it in some way or another. The spirit is typically viewed as a contact or conduit to some supernatural realm. There may or may not be a God posited in that supernatural realm.

What one might call "human" or better yet "natural" spirituality does not posit a supernatural spirit, but a totally natural "spiritual" side to human consciousness. One might think of natural spirituality as the human capacity to think of the metaphysical, to consider one's self (i.e. self-awareness), and to ask metaphysical or philosophical questions rather than purely scientific questions about existence, life, death, meaning and purpose (whether those questions are ultimately unanswerable and any perceived answers are just wishful thinking or not). An aspect of natural spirituality may even be the capacity, and perhaps even the necessity of (for some, anyway), finding or inventing answers to those questions.

I would even propose that all attempts at "supernatural" spirituality are merely misunderstood manifestations of natural spirituality. Our seeming need for answers to metaphysical questions has caused many of us to generare or accept supernatural explanations, and even to invent or believe in Gods.

I view consciousness as an emergent phenomenon, emerging from the electrochemical operations of physical brains. Human brains have reached a stage of complexity to allow the emergence of "higher" thought, including high-level language, self-awareness, scientific inquiry and even metaphysical speculation. As such, I view "natural" spirituality as, well, a completely natural phenomenon.

I find this, the existence of the human capacity for posing and seeking answers to scientific and metaphysical questions, and the human awareness of self and of the universe, to be a fascinating, and as yet mysterious, area of inquiry. As an atheist, I'm interested in both scientific questions and answers about the universe, and in metaphysical questions and answers. The latter area is where I see my natural spirituality. It may be our "doom" that any answers we find for scientific and metaphysical questions are always to be provisional answers, and indeed I think it's best that we always hold all such answers provisionally. But, to me anyway, that sure doesn't mean it's "silly" for an atheist to speculate on the metaphysical, and to find provisional answers or form metaphors that are satisfying to us spiritually.

Infidelettante

April 4, 2004, 10:51 PM

1. Do you think an atheist can benefit from myth? Can myth be relevant and useful in a non-believer's life? (Think broadly about myth here; and I'm not referring to God-belief, of course).

Symbolism is the key to knowledge of self and of one’s place in the human family. Mythology is the storehouse of symbolism. Religion is mythology is symbolism is psychology is knowledge of self.

2. Do you think an atheist can seek and/or experience the "spiritual" in life? Can an atheist seek and/or experience the "transcendant", even the "divine", in life and the universe while remaining an atheist?

I do so every day. I can’t imagine a life without a spiritual content. Carl Jung from Psychology and Religion But since modern research has acquainted us with the fact that individual consciousness is based on and surrounded by an indefinitely extended unconscious psyche, we must needs revise our somewhat old-fashioned prejudice that man is nothing but his consciousness…

And who is the real individual? If we go further and consider the fact that man is also what neither he himself nor other people know of him – an unknown something which can yet be proved to exist – the problem of identity becomes more difficult still. Indeed, it is quite impossible to define the extent and the ultimate character of psychic existence. When we now speak of man we mean the indefinable whole of him, in ineffable totality which can only be formulated symbolically.

So as I understand Jung the journey beyond self must take on mythological trappings for this is the language of the unconscious. The symbolism impressed on the human psyche through the ages is the only tool capable of revealing us to ourselves. Atheists risk life adrift from what makes us human if we reject the symbolic riches of myth only because of its religious veneer.

3. Do you think an atheist can seek or find "cosmic" meaning/purpose in life? "Cosmic", here, is not well-defined, I admit. One such example of a "cosmic" meaning/purpose to hopefully illustrate what I'm getting at: one can view life as the highest form of order in the universe, emerging from the physical, and can view consciousness, particularly human consciousness, that has emerged from life as the emergent consciousness of the Universe; IOW, we are the consciousness of the Universe, we are the eyes and ears of the Universe.

I am as captivated by Jung as I am frightened of him. He tells us at one time that only the archetypal can save us and at another that the unconscious is too deep to be plumbed and too dark to be lighted by any of our efforts. But, not to try is madness. That is my opinion. If nothing else is gained it makes for a novel and interesting approach to life.

I would answer in the affirmative to all three of my questions, BTW. And in regards to the last question, Friedman, in the third and last section of the book mentioned above, makes some interesting observations.

An interesting subject Mageth. I hope to hear more of your thinking on it.

JT

Semblance

April 5, 2004, 12:28 AM

...and possibly even role in the universe.

Myths don't have anything to say about that.

What, exactly, is wrong with means that help people deal with moving to the various stages of life, from childhood, to adolescence, to adulthood, to old age, to death?

Believing something because it makes you feel good is not a virtue.

...and that that metaphor can be useful for some.

The virtue of "usefulness" is trumped by the virtue of seeking honest answers.

As such, what is wrong if someone wants to do that, as long as it's understood as metaphor?

There is no need for it. The facts that you listed are all that is required. If it is understood to be a metaphor, it becomes superfluous.

And, in your specific case, the metaphor doesn't follow from the facts.

What's wrong with a metaphor that makes you feel good, if it otherwise does no harm?

Wishful thinking is harmful. The believer stops looking for honest answers.

Hugo Holbling

April 5, 2004, 04:13 AM

Myths don't tell us hard, literal facts about the universe. And they aren't intended to.

The thesis of de Santilliana and von Dechend suggests to the contrary, hence my offering it to you. I think it would be of interest to consider the possibility that myth was used to transmit knowledge other than (or as well as) what has been learned about our place in the universe.

If i may make another suggestion, you could quote a few examples of myths in this thread to support your case.

The AntiChris

April 5, 2004, 07:20 AM

2. Do you think an atheist can seek and/or experience the "spiritual" in life? This question doesn't make any sense once you define the "spiritual" in non-supernatural terms. You've described what you understand by human (as opposed to supernatural) spirituality as:One might think of natural spirituality as the human capacity to think of the metaphysical, to consider one's self (i.e. self-awareness), and to ask metaphysical or philosophical questions rather than purely scientific questions about existence, life, death, meaning and purpose (whether those questions are ultimately unanswerable and any perceived answers are just wishful thinking or not). An aspect of natural spirituality may even be the capacity, and perhaps even the necessity of (for some, anyway), finding or inventing answers to those questions. These are all attributes and activities that all humans quite obviously do have and engage in. It therefore makes no sense to ask if atheists can seek and/or experience the "spiritual" when spritual is defined in real-world, mundane terms.

The fact is atheists clearly can and do "experience the spiritual". Most of us, however, prefer not to confuse the issue by using quasi-religious terminology to describe our experiences.

Chris

Hugo Holbling

April 5, 2004, 10:32 AM

Here are some resources that might help anyone interested in this topic:

Myths and Legends (http://members.bellatlantic.net/~vze33gpz/myth.html)

Encyclopedia Mythica (http://www.pantheon.org/)

Mageth

April 5, 2004, 10:41 AM

Some very good responses, including some excellent observations and questions, since my last post, including some I need to do some serious thinking about. Unfortunately, I don't have the time right now for full responses; I'll try to get to them this evening.

I do want to say something now, directed mainly at Semblance but applicable in general:

Semblance said:

Wishful thinking is harmful. The believer stops looking for honest answers.

Understand that, when referring to myth/metaphor, and its possible usefulness, I'm not talking about religion, and I'm not talking about belief. For me, myth and metaphor are most useful when they are understood to be myth and metaphor. I am not talking about "wishful thinking" or a system of belief, and I'm not recommending taking the myths/metaphors literally. I see myth/metaphor as a way to symbolically convey messages/understanding of various sorts. Indeed, I think culturally that is the primary purpose of myth and metaphor.

Perhaps it would help to, instead of thinking about religious myths such as the Biblical myths (and I consider large parts of the Bible to be myths, notably most of Genesis and the Gospels), to think about fictional writing, poetry, art and music. All are ways to convey metaphorically messages that are not necessarily easily conveyed through other mechanisms (e.g. the writings of the philosophers), and in forms that are available, accessible, and even more enjoyable than the other mechanisms. Consider the writings of popular scientists such as Sagan, Hawking and Dawkins. Such writers often use metaphor to convey deep scientific, even philosophical, insight to the public.

I may seem to be straying a bit from the metaphor I supplied as an example, that "we are the eyes and ears of the universe." However, such metaphors may be useful to convey symbolically to people that we stand alone in the universe, with no God to help us, to oversee us, or to give us revelation. If revelations about the universe are to be found, we have to find them ourselves. There is no meaning to the brute fact of the universe, in my opinion, so if there is to be any meaning in the universe for us humans, then we are responsible for creating that meaning. One such meaning may be found in that we, alone, can ask questions and seek answers for the universe. I don't "believe" this metaphor, as the theist believes the metaphors of the Bible, as a literal truth. This is not "wishful thinking" on my part; it's a possible way for us to metaphorically understand that humans alone can possibly find answers (scientifically and/or philosophically) to the questions of the universe and the strange and fascinating thing we call life.

As I believe I mentioned above, part of my reason for this line of inquiry is to hopefully respond to the theist accusation that atheism provides no meaning or purpose, that God alone can provide meaning and purpose. I believe that meaning and purpose can be found in atheism. Initially, I responded to this charge by theists that "little" meanings and purposes were sufficient; just to live and enjoy life, to enjoy my family, to learn of the universe scientifically. I still believe they are, for many, and having only those things to live for is more than enough to keep me from Nihilism or Fatalism. However, I don't think that, as atheists, we should restrict ourselves from asking the bigger questions, from seeking bigger answers, and from looking for bigger meanings or purposes to existence sans God. Or from seeking metaphors to describe what we may find in our search.

Mageth

April 5, 2004, 11:10 AM

I will, however, respond to the rest of Semblance's post:

...and possibly even role in the universe.

Myths don't have anything to say about that.

Many myths do indeed say things about our role in the universe. That should be obvious. (I'm not saying, of course, that what those myths say is necessarily valid).

What, exactly, is wrong with means that help people deal with moving to the various stages of life, from childhood, to adolescence, to adulthood, to old age, to death?

Believing something because it makes you feel good is not a virtue.

First, "belief" is not necessary for metaphor to be useful in such matters. Metaphors can and do symbolically convey messages to people without the metaphos being believed as literal truths.

Second, the purpose of metaphor is not simply to "make you feel good." Helping an adolescent to move into adulthood, or a senior citizen to face their ultimate death, is not simply "making them feel good." You're trivializing the idea of metaphors and their purposes.

...and that that metaphor can be useful for some.

The virtue of "usefulness" is trumped by the virtue of seeking honest answers.

Myths and metaphors can and do symbolically convey "honest answers", and do it in a way that is accessible to more people than more mundane methods. Your implication that metaphor is not "honest" conveys a misunderstanding of metaphor. The real problem with myths and metaphors, and their greatest danger, lies when people start taking them literally, as many do the myths of Genesis. Another problem with myths and metaphors is when they survive beyond their usefulness, as I would argue the myths of the Bible have, for the most part, though I think one can still find some significance even in the metaphors of the Bible. And, of course, myths and metaphors can be used to convey things that are not true or even harmful. I don't deny that there are dangers to myths and metaphors.

As such, what is wrong if someone wants to do that, as long as it's understood as metaphor?

There is no need for it. The facts that you listed are all that is required. If it is understood to be a metaphor, it becomes superfluous.

Again, and forgive me for this, but you seem to misunderstand metaphor and its usefulness. There is need for metaphor, and the "facts" are not always all that is required to convey information, as many people cannot grasp, for example, brute scientific facts, such as the complex mathematics of superstring theory. And understanding a metaphor as metaphor is essential, and does not make the metaphor superfluous.

Consider, for example, superstring theory, since I brought it up. Read "The Elegant Universe" by Brian Greene, and you will see him using metaphor to convey the concepts of superstring theory to a public audience, most of which have no hope of ever understanding the brute "facts" of superstring theory without the use of metaphor. Heck, even "string" and "membrane" are metaphors, and are understood by those that know the theory, or that read Greene's books, to be symbolic and not literal descriptions of what the theory proposes, but useful nonetheless in helping our limited minds grasp the basic concepts.

And, in your specific case, the metaphor doesn't follow from the facts.

What are the "facts" you refer to? Can you convey them to me without using metaphor? Or to a general audience?

The metaphor is not intended to be a synopsis of the scientific facts, or a scientific statement or theory, but a philosophical or metaphysical speculation that one might infer from the facts, and that may be useful to some.

And if there is no creator God of the universe, and as far as we know, we are alone in the universe in having the intelligence and inclination to study the universe, (both of which I provisionally consider true, the former with much more certainty than the latter), why does it not follow that we can metaphorically consider ourselves as the "eyes and ears of the universe"? We look at and listen to the universe (literally), and as far as we know, we are the only eyes and ears doing this (at the level we are; no other creature we know of has detected the residue of the Big Bang, or gazed at galaxies 10 billion plus light years away, or detected the presence of subatomic, or even atomic, particles). We are, most definitely, part of the universe, and emerged from the non-intelligent physics of the universe. These facts considered, I think the metaphor that "we are the eyes and ears of the universe" is quite apt.

Writer@Large

April 5, 2004, 12:55 PM

Mageth, I totally get what you're trying to say, even if I don't 100% agree with it ;). I think part of your problem in expressing yourself, and perhaps part of the reason Semblance (and I) are resisitant, is a vocabulary problem. There's an issue with the word spirituality. The Feb/Mar issue (http://www.secularhumanism.org/library/fi/index_24.htm) of Free Inquiry contains what was, for me, a really eye-opening article on the term spirituality and how we use it.

"Why Spirituality is Antihumanistic" by David Eller, comes specifically from a secular humanist perspective, but I think it has broader nontheist applications. His main point is that spirituality "is seen as the opposite of humanity [...] it is the human expressed in terms of the nonhuman," and that the way a nontheist uses it is anti-nontheist. The article isn't avaiable online [unless you have access to OCLC FirstSearch], but I'll quote some relevant passages here.
What do people mean when they claim to be "spiritual"? What kinds of things do people, including some humanists, point to when they describe a "spiritual" experience? More critically, what do these experiences have in common? Most often, people describe the experience of a sunset, a work of art, surpassing love, and the like as "spiritual." Scholars too, equate the spiritual with feelings of awe and wonder. It is the majestic things (like mountains and sunsets); the immense things (distant galaxies or the universe itself); the exquisite things (like music); the precious things (like love and babies) that manifest the spiritual. These are the things that give us that feeling of rapture (a term that Christianity has hijacked), of being rapt, from the Latin rapere, to seize or to sweep away. We are literally seized by the power of the experience.

And therein lies the clue. What "spiritual" experiences, religious, artistic, or otherwise, have in common is their power, their capacity to grab us, to sweep us away emotionally in ways that "ordinary" life cannot or does not. They are vibrant (from the Latin vibrare, to shake); vital (from the Latin vita, life); lively (from the Old English lif, life); vivacious (from the Latin vivere, to live). These are the moments of ecstasy, from the Greek ex-histanai, to cause to stand out of itself or oneself. They feel like more than life, like extra life-more energetic, vibrant, and alive than normal life--and they feel like they come from outside of us.

Spiritual experiences seem to have more of that animating, vital stuff or force than mundane experiences do. They deliver a "higher dose" of life force--one that we do not routinely encounter, perhaps one we could not long sustain without damaging ourselves. They speed up our breath, making it more rapid (also from the Latin root rapere), an overt sign of the enhancement of our life force.

The problem is that under the dualistic view, this life force is "other" than us, outside of us, foreign to us. Where then could such a spiritual experience, such spiritual power, originate? It cannot be from us, because we are just inert matter. It must hail from wherever that first spirit originated, the one that gave us life in the first place. It must be from heaven, from the spirits, from god(s).

That conclusion is the great mistake. It is the confusion of "more life" with "other life." It is the attribution of life itself to another reality, another dimension, than the one in which we live every day--and, even more crucially, to a reality or dimension to which we do not have access. These profound, rapturous experiences depend on some other force coming and carrying us away. We are passive in the process. Funny, though, how it is nature and humanity that give us most of our "supernatural" experiences.

Talk of "spiritual" and "spirituality" perpetuates a profound mistake and constitutes a profound betrayal-perhaps the most profound betrayal humans have ever committed against themselves. The mistake is the prejudice, or belief, or "faith" that life and our ability to appreciate its finer aspects are not "natural" but must be supernatural-that beauty, awe, wonder, and love cannot be "things of this world." No, they must belong to a better world, a higher world, and they are only "revealed" to us for a brief time. Surely we puny material beings could not be capable of them on our own.

But the things that we call "spiritual" are precisely of this world. They are natural, and they are social. The spiritual is the encounter with humanness at its fullest. Hence, spirituality is the greatest possible betrayal of humanity. Talk of spirit and the spiritual alienates the very best part of humanness--literally, in the sense of making it alien to ourselves. It says, "This is the very best, the very most, that I can feel and be-and it is not me."

But we are the source. "Spiritual" experiences are human experiences--the best, the strongest, the most profound human experiences, but human nonetheless. They are not nonhuman, but rather ultra-human. We are richer by and for them; we impoverish ourselves when we credit these soaring feelings and capacities not to ourselves but to realms nonhuman, unknown, and almost certainly unreal. Sorry I quoted so much; I just thought it all might have a bearing here. Anyway, that's that. :)

--W@L

Mageth

April 5, 2004, 01:14 PM

Writer@Large

April 5, 2004, 01:23 PM

One of my intentions, though, is to seek ways to wrest those terms, and quite human experiences that those terms are meant to convey, from the exclusive realm of the supernatural camp.The article in question pushes for an abandonment of the term, in general, as opposed to a redefinition. From its conclusion:
By rejecting spirit and the spiritual as a seperate and external and "real" thing, we reclaim the wholeness of human experience and human be-ing. What we once called "spiritual," we should now call "human." We *do* need to wrest these experiences from the supernatural camp ... in part, by wresting them from a label that places them external to ourselves.

I totally agree, and when I talk of spiritual, transcendant, and even "divine", I am speaking solely of human experience, or as they say ultra-human experience (I like that term - it conveys to me the idea of emergence, that such experiences emerged from more mundane human experience). [...] Perhaps "ultra-human", properly defined as experience that transcends "common" experience, is a good replacement for "spiritual". Hmm, I'll have to think about that. And perhaps it's best just to abandon "divine" to to the theists; that word probably carries too much baggage.Indeed. Dunno if I like "ultra-human" though; it sounds too much like a superhero description. Maybe "extra-vital" experiences or "intensely human" experiences or "hypervital" experiences. Hmm ... none of them are quite poetry, but there's a coined term somewhere in this discussion ...

--W@L

Silent Acorns

April 5, 2004, 01:32 PM

Mageth

April 5, 2004, 01:38 PM

Good points, W@L, though I personally think the article is a bit too adamantly against the use of the term "spiritual". It can be understood in human(istic) terms, IMO, and indeed should be understood in human rather than supernatural terms. Though, as indicated by the article, the baggage it carries for many may make it beyond hope of rescue.

So perhaps those of us interested in this line of thought might want to work on a vocabulary that's free of supernatural connotations. That's a tough task, as so many words and phrases commonly used in this area carry supernatural connotations.

Mageth

April 5, 2004, 01:40 PM

I must admit that I am personally torn on the value of the word "spirituality". Part of me hates it for the very reasons Eller describes so much more eloquantly than I can. Lately though, I have begun to recognize the usefullness of the word - it means so much to so many people. It represents a major stumbling block for many thoughtful theists vis a vis acceptance of atheism. I think what Mageth is trying to describe here is a stratagy to hijack "spirituality" and use it to our advantage.

I agree with Eller, except that I'm starting to believe that his argument should be used as an argument to humanize the traditionally anti-human concept of spirituality.

Amen! (another term I like to hijack)

arcadia

April 5, 2004, 03:09 PM

Imaginary, metaphorical and symbolic thinking all come naturally to humans. Imagination, metaphors and symbols are all useful tools in understanding everything from the universe to welfare reform. They all help to produce that Ah-ha feeling (that endorphic or "spiritual" rush, if you will) when they work. As "myths" they are useful.

It is when they produce existing sentient superior beings which require subservience that these myths go off the track for me. I can accept, for example, the whole panoply of Greek or Roman gods as useful metaphorical tools for understanding just about anything. Icarus flying too close to the sun is a great metaphor for any number of human characteristics. But the idea that he or they once really existed or still exist is nonsense. And I feel sorry for those people who feel they have to kiss their idols' toes.

Jung, probably more so than anybody, explored the power of these characteristics of human thought. He had some great insights.

But then it seems like he had to do more. He had to create some kind of structure within the human mind that is a)unknowable and b)is really what drives us. I think it was he who prompted Hesse to write that "every man's life is a journey into himself".
Back in my college days that blew me away.

But now that I am older I can't go there and I don't think that there is any there there.

I think every man's life should be a journey into every other man's or humanity's life. Or the universe. Or whatever else sparks one's curiousity.

But as for the few "unknowable questions"-- the origin of it all, the meaning of it all, the mind of man, the mind of God etc--I am content by simply realizing that the same happy accident that produced our amazing minds produced those questions.

That's pretty cool and it works for me.

southernhybrid

April 5, 2004, 04:46 PM

It's ironic that Eller tries so hard to convince us not to use the word spiritual while presenting such a good case for its usage. At least that's how I felt when I read his opinion. I like the traditional definitions of the word and not the one stolen by religion.

One definition of spirit is the immaterial, sentient part of the person. The base of the word means breath. Life is dependent on breathing. I think of spirituality as a metaphor for the breath of life. It's merely symbollic and as of yet I have never found another word that expresses these intense emotions as well.

We are only spiritual while we are living. As an atheist and a realist, I don't believe in a spiritual realm but I find it quite appropriate to use the word spiritual as a label for those life affirming experiences that make life joyful.

When one is spiritual, one has a sense of a connection to life and all of the joyful things in life. While advances in neurology provide us with knowledge that these experiences are triggered by the release of endorphins in the brain, that knowledge doesn't change the experience itself or make it any less meaningful to the individual.

Of course this is a very subjective thing, not a matter of dogma that I'm trying to sell to other atheists. I don't tell other atheists what words they must use to describe the intangible exeriences in their lives, but at least I hope they will understand that the word spiritual doesn't necessarily refer to a supernatural realm, and its usage need not be limited to experiences of a religious nature. I hope that some here will learn not to cringe when they see others using some of the words traditionally associated with religion as methaphors.

Semblance

April 5, 2004, 05:16 PM

Metaphors can and do symbolically convey messages to people without the metaphos being believed as literal truths....There is need for metaphor, and the "facts" are not always all that is required to convey information, as many people cannot grasp, for example, brute scientific facts, such as the complex mathematics of superstring theory.

You are swinging between two different definitions of "myth" to suit your purpose. One of your concepts is that they are simply the "dumbing down" of complex ideas to make the ideas more understandable. There is nothing wrong with that. But you then want to make them much more than that, so that they can "explain our role in the universe" and other nonsense. Superstring theory itself has no comment about our role in the universe, so none of its metaphorical descriptions can either.

If you simply restricted metaphor to be things like "using the term 'string' in superstring theory", then I wouldn't have a problem. Those are just shortcuts used for efficiency. The superstring community understands what they mean by that term. You wish to make myths to be much more meaningful than that mundane definition would allow.

What are the "facts" you refer to? Can you convey them to me without using metaphor?

Of course. You listed them yourself:

- As far as we know, we are the highest consciousness in the universe.
- As far as we know, we are the only beings in the universe that are asking questions about the universe, its origins, and about life, ourselves, and our own origins.

Nothing more than that is needed. Apparently, you feel that more is needed, which is why you wish to go on to conclude "we are the consciousness of the Universe, we are the eyes and ears of the Universe." If this metaphor was simply a restatement of the facts, it would be superfluous. But you don't look at the metaphor as a restatement, you look at it as something more. That's the part I object to.

Mageth

April 6, 2004, 10:47 AM

I haven't forgotten about this thread; I just haven't had time to respond properly, and have needed some time to think more about the subject anyway. I'll try to get back to the topic tonight.

Anyway, there have been many good responses, both on the "nay" side and the "aye" side. I'd especially like to give a nod to Semblance, who's raised some difficult objections to my "argument for myth." :notworthy

One thing that this thread has illustrated to me, something which I of course already knew, is that atheists/agnostics are quite a diverse group, with widely varying opinions on virtually every subject. It may be that the answers to my three questions in the OP are all "yes and no; it depends on the atheist." The answers to the questions also may depend on what other philosophies the particular person accepts; the usefulness of myth, the acceptability of "spirituality" (still haven't found a replacement word), and the need for "meaning" may be affected by some other philosophical stance (e.g. what form of naturalism, materialism, etc. that the atheist adheres to).

And that may be for the best; I don't like the idea of a dogmatic form of atheism that demands that, to be a "true atheist", one has to accept this and not accept that.

Writer@Large

April 6, 2004, 01:16 PM

One thing that this thread has illustrated to me, something which I of course already knew, is that atheists/agnostics are quite a diverse group, with widely varying opinions on virtually every subject. Herding cats, man, herding cats ... ;)

the usefulness of myth, the acceptability of "spirituality" (still haven't found a replacement word), I've grown quite fond of "hypervital." :)

I've been pondering the bigger questions you posed in your OP, but I really don't know what to contribute at this point, except I think your ideas have merit, regardless of the vocabulary used to express them. Maybe I'm just not a very hypervital person; I don't tend to have hypervital experiences.

--W@L

Mageth

April 6, 2004, 01:41 PM

Herding cats, man, herding cats ... ;)

Most definitely. Which I like about atheists, BTW; as I alluded to above, dogmatic and/or exclusive systems, as are many religions, are repulsive to me. A dogmatic form of atheism that seeks to exclude or marginalize those that don't strictly follow some "doctrine of non-belief" is just about as undesirable as a dogmatic religion, IMO.

I've grown quite fond of "hypervital." :)

I like it as well.

I've been pondering the bigger questions you posed in your OP, but I really don't know what to contribute at this point, except I think your ideas have merit, regardless of the vocabulary used to express them. Maybe I'm just not a very hypervital person; I don't tend to have hypervital experiences.

That's true; some of us seem more in tune to the "hypervital" experience than others. There are atheists that experience what might be called the "hypervital" in life, and apparently atheists who think all such experiences are nonsense, and then atheists in-between. I think it would be beneficial to the atheist community in general to provide a vocabulary, and human- (rather than divine-) based framework, for the atheists who do have hypervital experiences, or who might like to but are not certain such experience are "appropriate" for the atheist due to the theistic (and "new age") baggage such experience carries for many atheists and theists alike. A framework and vocabulary in which such experiences can be understood, and enjoyed, in human terms.

Dana

April 6, 2004, 02:52 PM

Mageth

April 6, 2004, 02:56 PM

I love this thread!

But I think religion also kills the ability to see the "hypervital", spiritual, etc., in life. I stopped believing in magic, esp, astral projection, fate, the idea that everything has a soul or essence, even inanimate things, etc., when I became a born again Xian because they were incompatible with it.

I'm not sure if religion kills the ability to see the "spiritual" or merely projects its own narrow interpretations on "spiritual" experiences (it's god, it's demons, etc.)

Then, when I became an atheist, I just lost the religious stuff and was left with nothing "hypervital" at all :(

And I'm proposing that atheists so inclined can experience the "hypervital", and can do so in human terms rather than in theistic terms.

walt6

April 6, 2004, 10:35 PM

While I can experience peak moments watching a sunset, or holding my woman in my arms, I never get them confused with the metaphysical mumbo jumbo of the new age religions. In my long years as an atheist, I have learned to focus on what is real and what is not. The natural world is good enough, and I don't need fables to make my life meaningful. I make my life meaningful by experiencing life in as many ways as possible.

The following is true for me:

"When I became convinced that the Universe is natural - that all the ghosts and gods are myths, there entered into my brain, into my soul, into every drop of my blood, the sense, the feeling, of the joy of freedom. The walls of my prison crumbled and fell, the dungeon was flooded with light and all the bolts, and bars, and manacles became dust." --Robert Ingersoll

southernhybrid

April 7, 2004, 06:36 AM

I think that most of the posters in this thread are saying the same thing, although we have chosen different ways and words to express ourselves.

One of the things that I like about freethinkers, and I've met many in the last year as a result of joining two freethought groups, is that freethinkers are usually very interesting. We are interesting because we interpret life in so many different ways, and we have an interest in so many different areas. Since we thrive on free inquiry, we can learn, share and discuss just about anything with each other, and while we may not always agree, it's not difficult to be respectful and tolerant toward each other.

Joining with others has enriched my life, and inspired me to explore areas that I thought I had no interest in before. There are many questions that have no definitive answers and realizing that can bring us together. Our diversity and willingness to explore is what is important. I never feel like a herded cat when I'm involved with my atheist cohorts. I feel like a part of something exciting and adventurous, something spiritual or hypervital if you prefer.

naturalatheist

April 5, 2005, 01:28 PM

This is David Eller, author of "Natural Atheism." Thank you very much for your interest in my book and for taking my ideas seriously. You are thoughtful group.
The "original meaning" of "spirit" is OK, I suppose, if we remember that it is only a metaphor: spirit = breath = life. However, there are two big problems even with that. The first is that people tend to start taking their metaphors seriously. Yes, living things breath (well, most of them), but that does not mean that breath "is" life, and it certainly does not mean that breath or life is separate from the living being, that is, that there is some kind of dualism going on, with matter being "enlivened" by breath or life or spirit. Matter can be alive, or dead, depending on its organization. But matter can be alive without any outside help.
And that leads to the second problem. "Spirit" as used in any important sense implies something outside of or additional to the material body that is living. It is a name for a process that gets re-interpreted as an object, a "thing." But there is no "thing." Life is not a thing, breath is not a thing. Life and breath are processes of living beings, and therefore we do not need another word for it, and we are better off without another word for it, since the inclination is to take our word to refer to things.
Why is all of this important? Because language is so important. If theists and "spiritualists" get to control and dictate the language, then we have to speak THEIR language, and it is hard to get our point across and to win arguments when we have to speak theism-ese or spirit-ese. Rather, we need to start controlling our own language, and even making them speak OURS, so that they cannot dominate the discussion. And when we use words that THEY have defined, they will at least think that we mean what they mean...and often enough we will! That's why we should reject all words that have specific theistic/spiritistic content--like "belief" and "spirit" and "god" and "soul"--unless we really mean that content, which I certainly hope that we do not.

King Rat

April 5, 2005, 05:36 PM

BDS

April 5, 2005, 05:53 PM

Does anyone else think that Ritual is very closely tied to Myth? The older I get the more I think that humans need to create some sort of "marker" to help with memory, to denote change, and passage of time. I wonder aloud if; as those "markers" get embellished they cease to just be "markers" and take on a "life" of their own.

There's a "school" in anthropology called the "myth and ritual" school. Since Christians (especially Protestants) have emphasized myth over ritual, we tend to think of ritual as deriving from myth (e.g. Christamas is a celebartion of Jesus' mythological birth). This "school" stands this relationship on its head. Ritual (the notion goes) precedes myth, and a great many myths are actually "explanations" of rituals.

This makes sense inasamuch as many non-human animals practice a number of rituals, but (as far as we know) don't tell any myths. So it is likely that ritual actually did predate myth.

Alter

April 5, 2005, 05:57 PM

Atheists CAN find the "spiritual" or the "divine" within themselves. It's just that you have know it's JUST that, within yourself. All that spiritual feeling is an evolutionary remnant, probably of the pro-religious part of your brain that enabled some of your ancestors to either fit in better with society or to better cope with grief, war, etc. in a time of no understanding. The concept of an afterlife allowed them to deal with the capriciousness of death in a time when a splinter could decide your mortality.

So tap into that reservoir of enlightenment and spirituality. And be mroe comforted than the theists, in that you know all that good feeling and "divinity" is self-produced, in your very own brain. Use this new "emotion" for peace or creativity.

King Rat

April 5, 2005, 05:59 PM

This makes sense inasamuch as many non-human animals practice a number of rituals, but (as far as we know) don't tell any myths. So it is likely that ritual actually did predate myth.

Interesting. When I first deconverted, the loss of Myth didn't bother me as much as the loss of Ritual. For some reason that I have yet to understand, Ritual ranked higher than Myth for me emotionally. Perhaps it ranks higher genetically?

GoodLittleAtheist

April 5, 2005, 09:28 PM

Interesting. When I first deconverted, the loss of Myth didn't bother me as much as the loss of Ritual. For some reason that I have yet to understand, Ritual ranked higher than Myth for me emotionally. Perhaps it ranks higher genetically?
Well, another thing to consider is that Myth has a more obvious replacement than Ritual. A lot of literature (particularly in the fantasy genre) uses the same structure, themes, archetypes, etc as Myth. We acknowlege that it is fictional, but I think it still helps replace what is missing. I was actually going to start a poll about this to see how many atheists like to read that type of literature. I was asking more because I thought it odd how people who are so skeptical enjoy suspending disbelief in a 'controlled environment'. I only know from my own life, but it seems the people I know who like fantasy, tend to be scientists/skeptics and the religious people I know aren't crazy about it.

Great thread! I don't have time to read through it all now, but I'll be back. I should have a few Campbell books around here somewhere...

bernie43

April 6, 2005, 03:39 AM

naturalatheist, I like your comments very much.

We need to use our own human language and not let them have the upper side.

We need to reach out with a clear message.

So I get curious on your take on Ritual.

We could name it human habits.

As animal and like other animal we have habits for how to eat and how to get to sleep. How to greet people in the morning, how to cheer somebody up if they look depressed, how to express sharing in a sorrow and a lot of other things.

To have "a moment of silence" is one such human habit. To shake hands or give a five as a sign of acceptance and agreement.

We shouldn't use the word spiritual cause it is confusing. I've read this thread now today and didn't knew of it april 2004. I find Campbell interesting too. His views are used in the Movie biz and seems to work so they have somethign true about them.

the problem with myth is that it get's taken very literal by some of the users of myth.

"We are the eyes of the universe" and similar is used in ways that I fail to support.

Humans are habitual animals so we to stop refferring to it as "ritual" don't make it go away. But ...

How could we use "rituals" in fruitful ways without our "human habits" t get misunderstood by onlookers to be magical rituals like the religious ones?

Bernt

southernhybrid

April 6, 2005, 06:26 AM

I respectfully disagree with naturalatheist. When I first read his post, I was a little annoyed with him because he seemed to be telling other atheists what they should be doing. That reminds me too much of paternalism and dogma and I don't need to tell you what those things remind me of. ;)

Language is not static. Words and language are fluid, and often poetic or metaphorical. Theists do not own or define words for me, anymore than do other atheists. I would never allow other atheists to tell me what words I should or should not use, nor would I tell other atheists what words they should use. I am free to borrow traditional religious words if I find them useful in describing my human experiences.

There is no dogma when you're a freethinker and I like it that way. I may say that nature has blessed me or I may say that I adore my spouse and praise my friends for their support. It's okay to refer to my dogs as little gods , or my children as little devils. I may refer to myself as spiritual . When I am feeling very emotional, I may describe it as being soulful. I can pontificate on the meaning of life or simply be joyous regarding the rapture of being alive. My husband and I enjoy our love ritual.

bernie43

April 6, 2005, 06:59 AM

southernhybrid wrote: I may refer to myself as spiritual . When I am feeling very emotional, I may describe it as being soulful. ... My husband and I enjoy our love ritual.

Ok, I see your point. I use the word ritual too. I guess it exists in behavioral science so compared to spiritual it doesn't get as missunderstood.

so suppose you talk to a diverse group of individuals. some are theists as in Jew, Christiand and Muslim, others are theists as in Hindu or AsaGods or DruidicGods, others are New Age spirituality variants, others are atheists that don't know you well.

If you in that setting want to communicate without everybody getting totally confused you have to use words that have a common meaning.

spiritual don't! as far as I know. Tom Flynn suggested 99 different connotations in Free Inquiry some years ago. It does show that the word is almost impossible to use if you want to get your messagethrough.

What does it refer to when you use it?

(the word religious has the same ambigious meaning too. I feel very religious but are not a bit religious technically. I almost hate all religions. So I ahve stopped using the word religious. I don't use the word spiritual for the same reason. None wil lknow which of the 99 varieties I allure to. )

From maybe 1983 up to 1996 I saw myself as and presented myself as a
"religious Atheist". As I remember none got what i was talking about.

Many told me that they had spiritual but not religious feeligns. I failed to get what they talked about. I am seriously curious on if you could describe what your refer to as "spiritual".

I try to link to a text by David Eller.
http://www.americanatheist.org/spr03/T1/eller.html

Why I Am Not Spiritual
Spirituality as the Alienation of Humanity

end of linking
Bernt

bernie43

April 6, 2005, 07:14 AM

SH, I tried to use the word spiritual about three years ago.

I totally failed. none could get it. Ok that could be my bad english but I made extensive citations from people good at english. Still it totally failed.

Here is most of what I had on my site.

citation from 2002.

Spirituality, Religion, Theology: Mapping the Terrain by Sandra M. Schneiders,

(Here is my edited citations.) She writes: " I define spirituality as
"the experience of conscious involvement in the project of life-integration
through self-transcendence toward the ultimate value one perceives."

(She also cite Peter Van Ness, a professor of religion at Columbia University
who has specialized in the study of non-religious or secular spirituality, )

"(he) defines spirituality as "the quest for attaining an optimal relationship
between what one truly is and everything that is." By "everything that is"
he means "reality apprehended as a cosmic totality" and by "what one truly is"
he means all of the self to which one has attained at a given time. "

"In other words, spirituality is the attempt to relate in a positive way my whole self to
reality as a cosmic whole. This definition is broad enough to include both religious
and secular spiritualities." (She gives these explanations on what spirituality is)

"In its most basic or anthropological sense, spirituality, like personality,
is a characteristic of the person as such. It is the capacity of persons
to transcend themselves through knowledge and love, that is, to reach
beyond themselves in relationship to others and thus become more than
self-enclosed material monads. "

" I have tried to define spirituality broadly enough that the definition can apply to
religious and non-religious spiritualities and specifically enough that it does not
include virtually anything that anyone espouses."

spirituality is

First, spirituality is experience, ... It is personal lived reality.

Second, spirituality is an experience of conscious involvement in a project ...
It is an ongoing and coherent approach to life as a consciously pursued project.

Third, spirituality is a project of life-integration which means that it is holistic,
involving body and spirit, emotions and thought, social and individual aspects of life.
It is an effort to bring all of life together in an integrated synthesis of ongoing growth
and development.

Spirituality, then, involves one's whole life in relation to reality as a whole.

Fourth, this project of life-integration is pursued by consistent self-transcendence
toward ultimate value. This implies that spirituality is essentially positive in its direction.

... snip ...

The focus of self-transcendence is value that the person perceives as ultimate.

One might perceive life itself, personal or social well-being, the good
of the earth, justice for all people, or union with God as ultimate value,
as that which claims one's whole life-energy. There are other spiritualities
which are implicitly or explicitly non-religious in that they recognize no
transcendent reality, nothing beyond the cosmos as naturally knowable.

...snip ...

The thirst for meaning in life, the quest for self-integration, the desire for
self-dedication to something larger than oneself, is often very genuine.

... snip the tendency of some to try to piece together a personal,
authentic, non-religiously affiliated spirituality is very understandable.

Spirituality, Religion, Theology: Mapping the Terrain by Sandra M. Schneiders, IHM, at
the IHM Theological Education Project, Cycle III, Summer 1999. All rights reserved.
Schneiders is
Professor of New Testament and Spirituality at the Jesuit School of Theology in Berkeley, California.

Footnote 1
Peter Van Ness, "Introduction: Spirituality and the Secular Quest," in Spirituality and
the Secular Quest [World Spirituality: An Encyclopedic History of the Religious Quest, vol. 22],
edited by Peter Van Ness (New York: Crossroad, 1996), p. 5.

Peter Van Ness, a professor of religion at Columbia University who has specialized in
the study of non-religious or secular spirituality, defines spirituality "as the quest for
attaining an optimal relationship between what one truly is and everything that is."
By "everything that is" he means "reality apprehended as a cosmic totality" and by
"what one truly is" he means all of the self to which one has attained at a given time.
In other words, spirituality is the attempt to relate in a positive way my whole self
to reality as a cosmic whole. This definition is broad enough to include both religious
and secular spiritualities.

I mean if even somebody who is a professor of religion at Columbia University who has specialized in
the study of non-religious or secular spirituality, defines spirituality "as the quest for
attaining an optimal relationship between what one truly is and everything that is." if even he fails then why do you think we as atheists would succeed to get understood using the word spiritual. words have a social commonality about them that makes such attempts as yours almost impossible. The readers or listeners will have to wildguess what you refer to. Most of the time they simply will fail to get what to you is soo obvious when you use the word spiritual.

Bernt

bernie43

April 6, 2005, 07:29 AM

Here is my shortest citation from David Eller 2003 text.
"... the things that we call spiritual are precisely of this world. They are natural,
and they are social. They are not 'other life' but simply 'more life.' They are not
'other than human,' they are 'more human.' They are the best of human. The spiritual
is experienced as getting 'extra life' from somewhere outside of ourselves; in reality,
it is discovering deeper or better levels inside of ourselves. It is encountering
humanness at its fullest. "

"... what we once called spiritual we should now call human. Spirituality is the human
expressed in terms of the non-human. That is unacceptable and self-deprecating. I urgently
recommend, therefore, that we stop using the term spiritual altogether and replace it with
the term that means what we really mean."

MrHambre

April 6, 2005, 08:59 AM

Like others here, I'm only interested in mythology from a historical perspective. Writers like Joseph Campbell and Robert Graves satisfy my interest pretty well.

Unfortunately, my ex-SO considered such an interest condescending, and forbade me to go to her family's Seder. I had always been respectful and receptive at those gatherings, but this year she upped the ante, telling me I was excluded unless I was prepared to engage fully in the ritual and its meanings. Of course, that's impossible for me, so I bailed both from the ritual and the relationship.

I can appreciate the historical significance of certain rites or myths, and can assess them from the perspective of the culture that celebrates them. But I can't pretend I'm spiritually nourished by these traditions.

bernie43

April 6, 2005, 10:01 AM

MrHambre, may I ask?
what about such rituals as paying tribute to those who died in the Tsunami recently. Suppose at your job they told you that they hope as many as possible woult attend a short ceremony where the Boss would light a candle and then all of you stand silent looking at the candle until he blow it out? approx three minutes or so.

no word about God or spirit or sould or heaven just a candle spreading light and attentional silent as a rememberence fo the dead and Wounded?

Would that be acceptable to you?

I think your posting show how different people use the word spiritual. If southernhybrid was right about how unproblematic it is then this trouble you had MrHambre would not even come up.

what your former relatives refered to by using the word spirtual and how you interpreted it made it impossible for you to be part of the spiritual ceremony.

Bernt

MrHambre

April 6, 2005, 10:21 AM

what your former relatives refered to by using the word spirtual and how you interpreted it made it impossible for you to be part of the spiritual ceremony.

BerntWell, yeah, I guess that's exactly right. I attended last year's Seder and enjoyed myself immensely. I even took my turn reading from the Haggadah. However, this level of engagement was not enough for the ex, who evidently wanted me to convert to Judaism. Fat chance.

In response to your question about the tsunami victims: sure, I'd attend a silent ceremony for them. Last month I even attended my uncle's funeral in a Catholic church. However, I can't say that the priest's words of hope for his "soul's everlasting life with Jesus" rang any less hollow. I attended out of respect for the family, kept my atheist yap shut, and that's it.

bernie43

April 6, 2005, 10:47 AM

Do you understand what southernhybrid's usage of spiritual refers to?

what could it refer to if an atheist say it? Would peopel around her know that she use it in an atheistic way. Do you use the word spiritual. Give example.

I know Tom Clark use it on his site. But I am skeptical on how it get perceived by those who never have heard of http://naturalism.org/spiritua.htmb4.

Eudaimonist

April 7, 2005, 02:02 PM

1. Do you think an atheist can benefit from myth? Can myth be relevant and useful in a non-believer's life? (Think broadly about myth here; and I'm not referring to God-belief, of course).

Absolutely yes! In fact, atheists already benefit from myths, whether they realize it or not. Fiction contains many myths, and I'll bet that every atheist at IIDB has benefitted in some way from fiction. I loved the recent Lord of the Rings films (and the novels even more so, despite their gentle theism) because I find much to like in Tolkien's sense of heroism and the loyalty of good friends.

2. Do you think an atheist can seek and/or experience the "spiritual" in life? Can an atheist seek and/or experience the "transcendant", even the "divine", in life and the universe while remaining an atheist?

Yes, but I personally don't define spirituality in terms of "transcendance", although that is one major type of spirituality and by far the most popular and well-known. I consider myself spiritual, but I have no desire to "transcend" myself or the universe, but rather to grow as a person and to experience myself and my life with greater esteem and joy.

I seek the sacred in the secular -- the worthy in the worldly.

3. Do you think an atheist can seek or find "cosmic" meaning/purpose in life? "Cosmic", here, is not well-defined, I admit. One such example of a "cosmic" meaning/purpose to hopefully illustrate what I'm getting at: one can view life as the highest form of order in the universe, emerging from the physical, and can view consciousness, particularly human consciousness, that has emerged from life as the emergent consciousness of the Universe; IOW, we are the consciousness of the Universe, we are the eyes and ears of the Universe.

Yes, atheists can certainly do this, but it's not my cup of tea. I have no desire to confuse myself with the Universe, as if I have to identify with something really, really, really BIG in order to feel significant myself.

bernie43

April 7, 2005, 02:59 PM

Eudaimonist I consider myself spiritual, but I have no desire to "transcend" myself or the universe, but rather to grow as a person and to experience myself and my life with greater esteem and joy.

I seek the sacred in the secular -- the worthy in the worldly.

To grow as a person and to experience myself and my life with greater esteem and joy. I see this as a very human way of life. Why use such an ambigious and easily to get wrong word as spiritual?

Every time I hear NewAgers say.
I am spiritual and not the least religious.
I feel for saying the opposite. I feel and see myself as very religious but have no clue on what your spirituality refers to and most likely I would not support it.

I hope we could find better words for these things. spiritual don't work for me.

Bernt

PS within some three to four weeks I head for Stockholm soo bye to Sundsvall.

Eudaimonist

April 8, 2005, 05:11 AM

To grow as a person and to experience myself and my life with greater esteem and joy. I see this as a very human way of life. Why use such an ambigious and easily to get wrong word as spiritual?

I like the word spiritual. I know that atheists are often "allergic" to words that have been closely associated with religion, but I am not.

The reason I use this word is that it helps to dispell misconceptions about atheists -- e.g. that we are purely "materialistic" in our values and views of life. The word spiritual is already understood as a concern for personal development as opposed to materialistic goals. This helps the supernaturalists to see that we all have some common ground and are not as alien from each other as it may appear.

PS within some three to four weeks I head for Stockholm soo bye to Sundsvall.

Bye! Is this a visit, or are you moving there?

bernie43

April 8, 2005, 05:56 AM

Yes, some people do get what you refer to. But many others will totally fail to get it. I may be uniquely different but despite me studying this since 1963 I fail to get it on other than very superficial ways.
that we are purely "materialistic" in our values and views of life. but this show how important it is that we find words that works for us and get understood by the religionists too.

Now they may think that we are supporting their spiritual faith in the supernatural but don't love God out of stubborness. I'm teasing a bit. But the word makes us sound like New Agers or into believing that Dead people could be Channelized.

Bernt

Eudaimonist

April 10, 2005, 08:16 AM

but this show how important it is that we find words that works for us and get understood by the religionists too.

I would have thought that the failure of words such as "Bright" and "Universist" to be satisfying to all atheists (even only the naturalistic ones) would have shown that this is an impossible goal.

But the word makes us sound like New Agers or into believing that Dead people could be Channelized.

All I can say here is that, in my personal experience, this isn't so. I have had no difficulty explaining how I use the word, and have not been mistaken for a New Ager.

But if you wish to keep searching for new terms, go right ahead. You might yet find something I'll like better. :)

abaddon

April 12, 2005, 07:14 PM

1. Do you think an atheist can benefit from myth? Can myth be relevant and useful in a non-believer's life?

Absolutely. We live it, with awareness or not, because in a sense everyone’s life and experiences are stories. Tell your biography to someone sometime, it will come out with some of the same themes as world myths. We valorize our experiences by acknowledging the story they tell. I’ve survived a life-threatening illness, and without seeing it as a “trial by fire�? of sorts, I don’t know what to say about it except “Gee, I guess I’m lucky.�? The “trial by fire�? metaphor valorizes the experience and gives it a point, I am strengthened, and I learn something from the story for future use.

Our dreams each tell a story; and taken as a whole, a person's dreams tell a larger story that he cannot be fully acquainted with but could explore if he chose. And the similarities to dreams, folktales, and myths worldwide will become apparent if you follow the patterns. I'm not convinced products of the imagination are unreal or disconnected from real life. We’re all Odysseus on his journey back “home�? in that we all have curiosity, we all have questions and like to open doors and see what’s behind them, we all hope to achieve a sense of expansion by learning and experiencing more (whether inwardly or outwardly). When I read the Odyssey, I felt myself “transformed�? because of the adventures (and "trials") I experienced by living the myth in my imagination.

Metaphorical language is central to telling a meaningful story. We use symbols to express something that’d take too many paragraphs of more mundane language, or that can’t be expressed adequately in words at all except to point at images and say “Something like that, but more.�? Our minds were image-based as infants before we did as Adam did and gave everything its label and category.

2. Do you think an atheist can seek and/or experience the "spiritual" in life? Can an atheist seek and/or experience the "transcendent", even the "divine", in life and the universe while remaining an atheist?

Yes. Atheism is only a disbelief in god(s). That doesn’t rule out religion. And if you want to rule out religion, it doesn’t rule out experiences of the "numinous" -- the awesome and dreadful Otherness of that "out there", beyond the mundane everyday. While most people will likely feel awe when contemplating the Universe, there can potentially be more than just fuzzy feelings to an emotional/imaginal devotion to the Universe/Nature. Meditation practices that quiet the distractions of self-talk can intensify one’s ability to see patterns of interrelatedness between nature’s phenomena and between self and nature, or the simple Thisness of any particular thing. These expansive states benefit one’s depth of empathy, increase accurate self-assessment, strengthen relations with others, increase mindfulness in all actions, provide an increasingly pervasive sense of completeness in one’s life. It’s possible than prolonged or intensive meditation will realize some of the claims made for meditation in Oriental religions, like a clearer perception of reality unspoiled by egocentricity, where one no longer labels and comprehends every perceived thing only in its relation to oneself and its usefulness.

3. Do you think an atheist can seek or find "cosmic" meaning/purpose in life? "Cosmic", here, is not well-defined, I admit. One such example of a "cosmic" meaning/purpose to hopefully illustrate what I'm getting at: one can view life as the highest form of order in the universe, emerging from the physical, and can view consciousness, particularly human consciousness, that has emerged from life as the emergent consciousness of the Universe; IOW, we are the consciousness of the Universe, we are the eyes and ears of the Universe.

If the gist of this is that everything ultimately is interconnected then I agree, they/we are; perhaps more tenuously at far distances across the universe, but definitely there are intricate interconnections here on Earth. I personally don’t find my life made more meaningful by being a central feature of the Universe (“the eyes and ears�? of it); rather, I would remain feeling alienated if I were somehow separate from (or “more significant than�?) other species. Rather, I prefer to emphasize the interrelatedness, and the necessity of reverence and respect for diversity of life and all phenomena. There is an ethical consequence to revering existent beings and things, and that is a refusal to impose oneself unnecessarily into The Other’s space, as nothing in nature exists merely for human’s utility (the Bible's myth about God giving the Earth to Adam to "subdue" is a grand example of an extraordinarily deadly myth, and agricultural/technological society's continued genocidal assaults on almost all Earth's species prove the myth is not dead, meaningless or "mere superstition"). The need for balance and rejecting excess becomes apparent, both for the sake of immediate self-preservation and also for the sake of maintaining long-term symbiosis with the rest of life on Earth. Environmentalism/sustainable living necessarily become central concerns.

With or without acknowledgment of myth's central role in human imagination and behavior, the sense of wonderment, mystery, and reverence for the Universe is called "pantheism." It's been around a long while, and has notable mystics, philosophers, poets and scientists as "adherents," Einstein to name one of the most recognizable. Acceptance of anything supernatural isn't part of it, least of all in the physicalist-monist variety of pantheism (there are idealist and dualist varieties as well).

http://www.pantheist.net/
http://members.aol.com/Heraklit1/faqs.htm

bernie43

April 15, 2005, 12:21 AM

abaddon: If the gist of this is that everything ultimately is interconnected then I agree, they/we are; perhaps more tenuously at far distances across the universe, but definitely there are intricate interconnections here on Earth.

Doesn't it all depends on how we use words to refer to something outside metaphore?

What does a word stand for. What does the word "interconnection" stand for here?

I have not seen anything that give evidence of interconnection apart from usage as metafor.

sure, metaphores has their usage too but to use them literally makes them into extraordinary claims as I get it.

The extreme angry reactions to "fundamentalistic atheists" recently showed me that words take too literally show that we fail to use metaphores.

In what practical way are "we" supposed to be interconnected at all. We are truly separate as social individuals. Even biological siblings and even twins are truly separate.

Worst of all.

As far as I get it. All of us are truly separate from our own brain's inner motivations. we could only indirectly after the act guess what motivated us t oact that way. Only vaguely could we wild guess what is up adn what is going on within ourselves.

How could we be interconnected if we even fail to connect to ourselves?

Is it not a kind of Meme virus and it totally lack evidence to be true.

interconnection is a myth that feels good but lacking evidence.

Bernt

abaddon

April 15, 2005, 04:07 AM

What does a word stand for. What does the word "interconnection" stand for here?

Cause and effect, generally. A give and take in life systems (feedback loops), more specifically. The plant is eaten by the cow, the cow's eaten by the man, the man rots in the earth, his minerals become parts of plants, plants photosynthesize, the cow and the man breathe the air, etc.

I have not seen anything that give evidence of interconnection apart from usage as metafor.

In what practical way are "we" supposed to be interconnected at all. We are truly separate as social individuals. Even biological siblings and even twins are truly separate.

I didn't even intend the word "interconnection" as a metaphor. Here's a metaphor for you: The Earth is a living being (http://www.gaianet.fsbusiness.co.uk/gaiatheory.html). When I used the word "we" I was thinking more of everything living and non-living, rather than only of humans.

Worst of all.

As far as I get it. All of us are truly separate from our own brain's inner motivations. we could only indirectly after the act guess what motivated us t oact that way. Only vaguely could we wild guess what is up adn what is going on within ourselves.

How could we be interconnected if we even fail to connect to ourselves?

Is it not a kind of Meme virus and it totally lack evidence to be true.

interconnection is a myth that feels good but lacking evidence.

Bernt

I guess you didn't write this and I'm not reading it if there's no interconnection. Sometimes thinking too much gets in the way of seeing and detecting more of what's going on around and within us. I'm having trouble now thinking of something disconnected and separate ... really can't even imagine it.

bernie43

April 16, 2005, 05:38 AM

It all depends on how we use words. I've been active in the WPM email list and those who loved to point out that "the feeling of being separate is an illusion and false cause we are interconnected" they meant it in a way you seem unawere of in your latest post.

If I get your usage it doesn't mean what they referred to.

Ok words have different meanings to everybody but I am surprised of your way of using interconnected. To me your usage is not to be interconnected or even connected.

You wrote:
If the gist of this is that everything ultimately is interconnected then I agree, they/we are

How do you expect of me to not trust you on your words. If we are "ultimately is interconnected" then this must mean something more than you wrote in your latest post. To me the word ultimately is extra-ordinary.

Do You agree with me that as the Pantheist'sin WPM use the word is not how you use the word here?

Paul Harrison seems to know these nuances.
Most modern pantheists are monists in the sense that they believe there is only one type of substance - matter - rather than two different and distinct types, spirit and matter. They believe that all individual things have a common origin with humans, and are closely interlinked and interdependent in many ways. They and we interconnect through social systems and ecosystems and the greater system of Gaia, as well as through gravity and the universe-wide spread of signals and impacts.

However, few modern pantheists would agree with Spinoza's extreme form of monism. Anyone with eyes can see that matter in the universe is arranged into distinct individual things: galaxies, stars, planets, trees, people. This diversity is an essential part of the beauty of nature and the night sky. Without diversity everything would be drably monotonous.

Attempts to deny diversity usually end up in claiming that the visible world is mere illusion. Scientific pantheism believes the universe is vibrantly real.

So things are one in some senses, and many in other senses. They are linked in some senses, and separate in others. Anyone who claims that things are totally united, or totally separate, is flying in the face of everyday experience and of scientific evidence.
http://members.aol.com/Heraklit1/faqs.htm

Bernt

abaddon

April 16, 2005, 02:28 PM

If the people in the WPM email list mean something more by the word "interconnection" than the facts that every single thing in the Universe is energy-matter, it all comes from one source (the big bang?), and all potentially can affect other things ... then I don't know what they mean.

For me, what pantheism adds to the barebones nature-only worldview that most atheists adhere to are states of consciousness induced by reverence and awe and a sense of belonging that surpass the occasional emotionality that everyone feels when they contemplate nature; including even an occasional dissolution of the psychological sense of separateness and a direct experience of union with my environment. But, in all, I add to philosophical naturalism only my emotional reaction and a moral stance that my emotional reaction necessitates; and that's the essence of my pantheism.

If the gist of this is that everything ultimately is interconnected then I agree, they/we are; perhaps more tenuously at far distances across the Universe, but definitely there are intricate interconnections here on Earth.

Let me define my terms:

"Ultimately" here means "after everything has been considered.�?*

"Interconnected" means "a state of being connected reciprocally."* I used the metaphor of "give and take" in my previous post, as in symbiotic relationships, but interconnectedness extends to everything that shares an origin, that shares a similar composition (matter-energy), that at any point comes in direct or indirect contact and affects any other thing in the Universe. Being a part of the Universe means there is no possibility that a part can be considered totally isolated, fully distinct in and of itself, or alone. So my perceived unity with the Universe is one aspect of interconnectedness; yet it remains a fact that all is necessarily connected, regardless of how I feel about it.

I use the word "We," to contrast against an "Us/Them" illusion of separateness. By "we" I intend to affirm that all existent, distinct things are recognizable, meaningful entities, living or not; that being a part of the Universe conveys an intrinsic value to every ecosystem, raccoon, tree and rock, and this value must be respected.

There are international laws regarding human rights. No one has yet established international laws regarding the rights of other species and the earth’s ecosystems, and I think that's a huge mistake. Diversity is absolutely essential to our existence, because of our vital interconnection. There is no separation. People can babble, until we are all extinct, about how especially distinct humans are and about the “progress�? of human endeavors and about our own rights, but until we recognize we’re but a part of the Earth and not its owners or stewards, then the Myth of Ownership will keep devastating the Earth's ecosystems and extinguishing thousands of species each year. And this is the moral consequence that I see as an unavoidable conclusion to the fact that everything is connected, it all belongs, and if existence is valuable then every part of the Universe is valuable.

I don't see any contradiction whatsoever between Paul Harrison's statement and what I've been saying. Actually, I am in 100% agreement with that quote you gave: monism, one substance, diversity, distinct things connected with other things ... It's pretty much what I've been trying to say. I only tried to emphasize the interconnectedness rather than the differences. As Harrison says: "They [the diverse things we see in the Universe] and we interconnect through social systems and ecosystems and the greater system of Gaia, as well as through gravity and the Universe-wide spread of signals and impacts." Yes, precisely! Even an interstellar dust particle doesn't exist utterly isolated. It's matter-energy like everything else, it came from where everything else came from, sooner or later it will affect something it collides with, its mass is part of the equation of the Universe's total mass and so it has its role to play in the "scheme" of things.

Maybe I haven't been very clear, or maybe you see nuances that I'm missing. I've read Harrison's book on Pantheism. His view and mine (regarding pantheism) seem very close in all aspects. Maybe I need to know more what you mean by "truly separate" and then I'll understand your objection to my use of the word "interconnectedness"?

* (Source: WordNet ® 2.0, © 2003 Princeton University).

bernie43

April 16, 2005, 11:59 PM

By "we" I intend to affirm that all existent, distinct things are recognizable, meaningful entities, living or not; that being a part of the Universe conveys an intrinsic value to every ecosystem, raccoon, tree and rock, and this value must be respected.

There are international laws regarding human rights. No one has yet established international laws regarding the rights of other species and the earth’s ecosystems, and I think that's a huge mistake. Diversity is absolutely essential to our existence, because of our vital interconnection.

There is no separation.

People can babble, until we are all extinct, about how especially distinct humans are and about the “progress�? of human endeavors and about our own rights, but until we recognize we’re but a part of the Earth and not its owners or stewards, then the Myth of Ownership will keep devastating the Earth's ecosystems and extinguishing thousands of species each year.

And this is the moral consequence that I see as an unavoidable conclusion to the fact that everything is connected, it all belongs, and if existence is valuable then every part of the Universe is valuable.

I could be wrong but to me reading you as I indicate above citing you as I read you. The "There is no separation. " seems to me to be used here as a tool for your eco-ethical political correctness and not as a description on how reality best are described.

I could be wrong but I see the above quote as an indication that you make a political staement and not a science-minded description of what most likely is good map of the terrain.

I think words like inter-connected and that "There is no separation. " get very inconsistent in the light of or from the perspective of that "we" as a specie even fail to connect to what makes us individuals. All introspection on what goes on whithin us is more like speculation.

We have almost no access to the circuits that motivates us to decide on how to act.
We are more like interpreters of a biological neuronal net that have been trained to be social within a human traditional culture.

Language as a tool for interpreting what is.

I could accept words like inter-connected as a poetic expressions of emotional needs or likes or dislikes or political statements if they are open about it and not disguised as facts about reality but as linguistic maps of reality these words you use hre seems more like political proposes of party-line manifestos than to be science-minded descriptions or models of reality.

To me your "There is no separation. " look more like a faith than a fact.

Bernt

abaddon

April 17, 2005, 02:06 AM

I could be wrong but to me reading you as I indicate above citing you as I read you. The "There is no separation. " seems to me to be used here as a tool for your eco-ethical political correctness and not as a description on how reality best are described.

I could be wrong but I see the above quote as an indication that you make a political staement and not a science-minded description of what most likely is good map of the terrain.

I think words like inter-connected and that "There is no separation. " get very inconsistent in the light of or from the perspective of that "we" as a specie even fail to connect to what makes us individuals. All introspection on what goes on whithin us is more like speculation.

We have almost no access to the circuits that motivates us to decide on how to act.
We are more like interpreters of a biological neuronal net that have been trained to be social within a human traditional culture.

Language as a tool for interpreting what is.

I could accept words like inter-connected as a poetic expressions of emotional needs or likes or dislikes or political statements if they are open about it and not disguised as facts about reality but as linguistic maps of reality these words you use hre seems more like political proposes of party-line manifestos than to be science-minded descriptions or models of reality.

To me your "There is no separation. " look more like a faith than a fact.

Bernt

Well, I see it's a mistake to explain my viewpoint to you, considering how "separate" you are. Most of the sentences in that post are too garbled for me to even address ... "... interpreters of a biological neuronal net that have been trained to be social within a human traditional culture." Huh???

Why don't you name just one thing, JUST ONE, that is separate from all else in the universe? And I mean an existent something that we all know, forget the utterly incoherent crap about how no one of the human species can connect with himself or your personal inability to know anything about yourself ...

The idiotic accusation that I'm disguising my supposed "political correctness" is so far off-base, I'm just stunned. You're delving into faith and politics and you fault me for doing it ... But we were discussing the possibility of religion for atheists, and I presented my ethical stance, which (as it does for most pantheists) centers on environmentalism. It was never about being merely descriptive or interpretive, that's for science whereas religion is values.

My question for you is: Can you name just one thing in the universe that is separate from all other things in the universe?

Brian63

April 17, 2005, 01:28 PM

Let's keep it cool, folks. We aim for friendly discussions here. If that is too much for you, please do not participate. If you are capable of maintaining a friendly discussion, please do stay.

Brian
PA&SA mod

abaddon

April 17, 2005, 06:29 PM

I could be wrong but to me reading you as I indicate above citing you as I read you. The "There is no separation. " seems to me to be used here as a tool for your eco-ethical political correctness and not as a description on how reality best are described.

Ok, I'm making a second attempt to parse these words. "There is no separation" is not a tool for hypocrisy ("political correctness"). I said I feel reverence for nature and part of it has to do with the fact that everything shares the same substance (matter-energy), everything can affect things, and the basic substance tends to organize into complex systems from the molecular to the galactic level. Each of these three ideas demonstrate just what I mean by "interconnection."

I still don't know how to address the "There is no interconnectedness" stance because it is beyond my imagining that there is something in the Universe that isn't part of the Universe. Apparently bernie43 thinks "interconnectedness" implies something mystical or supernatural when actually all of science's theories depend on a consistency of laws and substance throughout nature. He's picked up on "nuances" regarding the word "interconnection" somewhere, and would like my position to jibe with his imagination of these other person's positions. I am not talking about a "We are all One Spirit" or other similar sentiment. I'm saying, in very general terms, the Universe is the Universe, there's one "Substance" (I reject dualism), there's nothing "outside" of or "more than" the Universe. If the Universe is valued emotionally, then all the bits that make it up can be valued too as individual, distinct aspects of the whole.

I could be wrong but I see the above quote as an indication that you make a political staement and not a science-minded description of what most likely is good map of the terrain.

No, I made an ethical statement and it's founded on my emotions. Revering nature means I must respect nature. To act on my feeling that nature must be respected would require political action, because I see quite plainly that many people do not respect nature, but that's another topic because my ethical stance is what it is regardless of politics. I