Probably a Different Perspective

[OldGit]

[Nick_A]

Why do I smell joss-sticks, hear chanting and see sandals and robes? 

Looking at that again, it was a cheap shot as well as unwelcoming.  I apologise.

No harm no foul. As long as it was sincere, it is always welcome. The unification of atheism and the essence of religion as complimentary in the mutual search for truth will bring many growls from all sides before it comes to be.

[xSilverPhinx]

i say that it's all just different perspective on the way you live your life and im new and im glad that the long time members haven't shot you down for being different like some other forums i've been to that support atheism

I would expect to be shot down. Whenever people hold strong opinions they will shoot down what threatens them. That is why I admire those like Simone Weil. She was considered the greatest pain in the ass in the University where she studied. She probably was. But instead of being open to these strange people that have an overwhelming need for truth, people condemn them for not fitting in since they threaten our established norms.

The Director of Career Placement, Ecole Normale Supérieure wrote of Simone:

We shall send the Red Virgin as far away as possible so that we shall never hear of her again

The Police Commissioner of Le Puy to the Prefect in a 1932 report to the Prefect wrote of Simone:

In the interest of public security it would be advisable that this person be distanced from Le Puy, where she has never ceased to preach revolt.

Looks like an interesting person

Welcome, btw!

[Nick_A]

i say that it's all just different perspective on the way you live your life and im new and im glad that the long time members haven't shot you down for being different like some other forums i've been to that support atheism

I would expect to be shot down. Whenever people hold strong opinions they will shoot down what threatens them. That is why I admire those like Simone Weil. She was considered the greatest pain in the ass in the University where she studied. She probably was. But instead of being open to these strange people that have an overwhelming need for truth, people condemn them for not fitting in since they threaten our established norms.

The Director of Career Placement, Ecole Normale Supérieure wrote of Simone:

We shall send the Red Virgin as far away as possible so that we shall never hear of her again

The Police Commissioner of Le Puy to the Prefect in a 1932 report to the Prefect wrote of Simone:

In the interest of public security it would be advisable that this person be distanced from Le Puy, where she has never ceased to preach revolt.

Looks like an interesting person

Welcome, btw!

Albert Camus said that Simone Weil had a "lucid madness for truth." I am more inclined to go with the flow. It makes me wonder which of us is  more objectively normal. My gut feeling is that she is which is a scary thought.

[Shy]

i say that it's all just different perspective on the way you live your life and im new and im glad that the long time members haven't shot you down for being different like some other forums i've been to that support atheism

So true. I have already stuck my foot in my mouth and I was flamed or criticized to the point of shame for it. This is a great place.

Welcome Nick!

[Recusant]

Hi All

I've come to believe that neither science and the essence of religion nor the essence of religion and atheism are mutually exclusive. In fact they are complimentary.

I know this seems odd so I'd like to post a quote from Simone Weil to illustrate what I believe to be the unification of atheism and the essence of religion. I'd like to learn if you are open to this possibility or just find it ridiculous.

Religion in so far as it is a source of consolation is a hindrance to true faith; and in this sense atheism is a purification. I have to be an atheist with that part of myself which is not made for God. Among those in whom the supernatural part of themselves has not been awakened, the atheists are right and the believers wrong.
- Simone Weil, Faiths of Meditation; Contemplation of the divine
the Simone Weil Reader, edited by George A. Panichas (David McKay Co. NY 1977) p 417

Hello and welcome to HAF, Nick_A.

Since "the essence of religion" remains undefined here, I will only render a provisional "buncombe."  As for the Weil quote, it strikes me as a choice sample of high-falutin' double talk.  I would get more specific, but the rules of the forum mean that an actual conversation on the ideas you present here will have to wait until you've served your time making small talk in the "Getting To Know You" ghetto section.  

I hope you enjoy your time reading and posting here.

[Crow]

Hey Nick,

I don't find your view to be that odd at all, in fact I have heard it a few times.

As the quote is rather vague and I'm more interested in how you combine the two strains of thought together.

How would you define the complimentary elements of the two in your own beliefs?
What elements of religion do you keep and which do you throw away, or what do you define as the "essence of religion"?
What do you consider to be "true faith"?

[Nick_A]

Hey Nick,

I don't find your view to be that odd at all, in fact I have heard it a few times.

As the quote is rather vague and I'm more interested in how you combine the two strains of thought together.

How would you define the complimentary elements of the two in your own beliefs?
What elements of religion do you keep and which do you throw away, or what do you define as the "essence of religion"?
What do you consider to be "true faith"?

Hi Crow

I see you are a negative atheist so appreciate ideas rather than just the joys of denial

My guess is that it is this attitude that made those like Simone appreciate atheism.

Simone Weil has observed: "There are two atheisms of which one is a purification of the notion of God."
- William Robert Miller (ed.), The New Christianity (New York: Delacorte Press 1967) p 267; in Paul Schilling,
God in an age of atheism (Abingdon: Nashville 1969) p 17
****************

The essence of religion initiated with a conscious source in several forms each of which gradually devolved into society and became secularized. This means for example that even though Christianity and Buddhism appear different, it is only because they have been secularized. But their essence is the same that began for Man at a transcendent level of reality.

The person awakening to the fact that we do live as Plato described as if in a cave experiences the essence of religion awakening the person to the human condition.

The negative atheist or the person interested in truth rather than denial for the sake of self importance senses the secularization of religion and points out the hypocrisy secularized religion has become.

So someone like Simone comes to know that the atheist is right to object to obvious absurdities. Yet at the same time, if they have not become closed minded, they can become to experience the human condition in the same way the person having felt the truth of the human condition by experiencing "grace." 

The secularization of either religion or atheism is not the pursuit of truth but rather of "prestige." Yet atheists like Simone began to understand it and transcended the limitations of "prestige."

True faith is not a faith IN something but rather a developed human attribute that exists in us at an infantile level. The Disciples believed in Jesus and had faith IN him. But they lacked the faith OF Christ. Faith IN Christ is of little value while seeking to acquire the faith OF Christ is of enormous value.  Faith as a human attribute is what allows a person to remain conscious of the truth of higher influences while experiencing the world. A conscious person connects above and below. We cannot do this. We quickly become attached to what is happening and lose the conscious perspective that connects above and below in the human organism.

The essence of religion is about acquiring consciousness. The atheist only appreciates reactive consciousness. Opening to the depth of self awareness reveals the human condition which I believe the negative atheist could open to since their denial is not running on automatic pilot.

[xSilverPhinx]

Very interesting. Would you say that this "true faith" requires a belief in an intelligent conscious god?

[Twentythree]

Hey nick, welcome you've got some interesting insight and point of view already I'm interested to hear more. I am quickly coming to agree with David Sloan Wilsons ideas regarding meaning systems. In his theory meaning systems of all kind evolved including religion. From an evolutionary standpoint there does not have to be truth in a meaning system it just has to inspire behaviors favorable for the continued replication of that meaning system. I think that atheism could be considered a meaning system. I've left a link to the lecture it's amazing how he is able to show that both atheists and theists can regard their meaning system with equal levels of elation or revulsion. hit your 50 and we can get into it more.

http://www.tvo.org/TVOsites/WebObjects/TvoMicrosite.woa?bi?1299362400000

[Crow]

http://www.tvo.org/TVOsites/WebObjects/TvoMicrosite.woa?bi?1299362400000

Great link! I agree with you that atheism is a meaning system, it is quite clear how secularism managed to grow like it has in western society looking at its history; just like its possible to observe the evolution of religion with the evolution of humanity.

What I found most interesting about the video (even though it was very quick) was the correlation between quality of life and religious dominance, if this research is correct then the more secular society is the better quality of life is, it also seems to be the case looking at Monocle magazines survey on "Top 20 Liveable Cities" (issue 05, Volume 01) it used a variety of scientific statistics relating to quality of life, those being: state education, medical care, crime, hours of sunshine, average temperature, social tolerance, entertainment, public transport, international flight accessibility, local media, international media, green space, access to nature, environmental initiatives, business potential. The results all erred towards majority secularist societies especially within the top 10.

[xSilverPhinx]

http://www.tvo.org/TVOsites/WebObjects/TvoMicrosite.woa?bi?1299362400000

Great link! I agree with you that atheism is a meaning system, it is quite clear how secularism managed to grow like it has in western society looking at its history; just like its possible to observe the evolution of religion with the evolution of humanity.

What I found most interesting about the video (even though it was very quick) was the correlation between quality of life and religious dominance, if this research is correct then the more secular society is the better quality of life is, it also seems to be the case looking at Monocle magazines survey on "Top 20 Liveable Cities" (issue 05, Volume 01) it used a variety of scientific statistics relating to quality of life, those being: state education, medical care, crime, hours of sunshine, average temperature, social tolerance, entertainment, public transport, international flight accessibility, local media, international media, green space, access to nature, environmental initiatives, business potential. The results all erred towards majority secularist societies especially within the top 10.

And we have the Pope on the other hand...

[Whitney]

Great link! I agree with you that atheism is a meaning system

I disagree...atheism itself has no set of values attached to it.  What is a meaning system is the various groups who all just happen to contain atheists things like humanism, freethought, brights etc.  Even this forum provides a framework to have a "happy atheist" meaning system if one were to take the mission statement to heart.  I also don't think theist is a meaning system by itself.

[xSilverPhinx]

Great link! I agree with you that atheism is a meaning system

I disagree...atheism itself has no set of values attached to it.  What is a meaning system is the various groups who all just happen to contain atheists things like humanism, freethought, brights etc.  Even this forum provides a framework to have a "happy atheist" meaning system if one were to take the mission statement to heart.  I also don't think theist is a meaning system by itself.

I think there are atheistic meaning systems (meaning systems in which a belief in gods is not a part) but there isn't an atheist meaning system (one revolving around a lack of beleif in god or gods).

Pure atheism as a meaning system is rather meaningless.

[Whitney]

meaning based purely on atheism:

What is the meaning of life? "I don't believe in god"
Is morality objective? "I don't believe in god"
Why do you enjoy living? "I don't believe in god"
Do you find life personally meaningful? "I don't believe in god"

^If that's a meaning system then some people's standards of "meaning" are a bit low. 

If you apply traditional buddhism, for instance, you'd actually get real answers to the above yet still be talking to someone who is an atheist.