All Comments (147)

I know it is a little late to post on this thread; everyone is probably gone. But RB-freedom-for-all, you are the only one who seems to have understood, in a real way, what I mean. As a Christian, I am offered the hope of Heaven. But I am afraid of Heaven, because it will not be like the earth, which I love, even though I must suffer here. With no cares, worries, aches, or pains, not even jealously, hate, nor even live, no concept of the dearness and preciousness of life, what will it be like? Will it be boring? If it could be like earth, but only, maybe with not so many ups and downs, that might be better.

Also, I commented extensively about how we do not really choose our own beliefs and thoughts, and Gerry replied that I do not believe in free-will. But I did not say anything about free-will. What I meant is that our beliefs are formed, in a way not of our choosing, but which, is mysterious to me. We do not choose, but things do happen, not necessarily by pre-destination. I had already stated that the world exists and operates according to patterns that seem paradoxical to us; that is why I can sense that we do not choose our beliefs, yet, at the same time, we do have free choice.

Daniel:

You said: "the nature of contrasting experience, makes suffering for all people, a necessry part of existence, necessary, not as a required rule, but necessary in order to exist at all."

I can relate to your musings on the nature of suffering. One of the thoughts I consider from time to time is the idea that, when we (our spirits) become one with God and experience bliss for eternity, eternity is such a long time! Maybe HEAVEN is being granted a corporeal, mortal life and experiencing the joy, love, pain, suffering, passions, and pleasures that accompany an existence on the physical plane of life, short-lived as it is! After all that eternal bliss, life as a cure for boredom would seem like HEAVEN!

Seems like American nuns, and nuns in some other places, are gradually becoming "None". Sorry, but I could not resist that pun. :(

There are remarkably few young women joining the various orders of nuns, most likely because they can have much more lucrative careers elsewhere while still leading lives that are at least approximately "normal". They do not have to sacrifice either their sexuality or their families to do so.

And the result is that the US nun population has become remarkably old -- as of recently, US nuns' average age is around 70. Catholic schools, which once had plenty of nuns to employ as teachers, now employ lay Catholics -- and also non-Catholics. I have a female relative who is a non-Catholic, but who recently taught in a Catholic school for a year. She worried that she might not get the job, but she discovered that she was far from alone in being a non-Catholic there.

Sorry, the post @ 12:28 was mine.

Hi Susan,

I always get a kick out of statements such as your statement below, not because I doubt that your grandmother was a really kind person, just because your worldview has a hard time explaining the why and "ought" of ethics,

"I often dream of her when I am wrestling with a particularly troublesome ethical dilemma, because she was the kindest person I ever knew. I don't have to ask, "What would Jesus do?" I ask what my gran would do."

The question is how do you arrive at an ethical judgment, such as "kindness" without an absolute, objective, ultimate standard or measure?

Please forgive me for the tough question, but why is your grandmother the standard we should or "ought" to be looking to in modeling kindness? In a world of relative ethics, why should my definition of kindness be the same as your definition, and if it is not then how do we determine which is correct? Just because you or I say so?

Thank goodness words do have definite meaning and God has spoken so that we can have a true understanding of what kindness is, for His Word is true and He does not contradict Himself.

I find the Huxley quote interesting,

"One thing people shall not call me with justice and that is--a liar."

Why, does he set the standard of what truth is? Is what he says without error? (John 8:44; Romans 1:18, 25)

Hi A-gnostic,

Your quote goes,

"“In quantum physics objects are not seen as definite things, as we are used to seeing them. Newton taught us that objects are definite things, they can be seen all the time, moving in definite trajectories. Quantum physics doesn't depict objects that way at all. In quantum physics, objects are seen as possibilities, possibility waves."

I'm hoping your quantum theory takes into consideration the physicalness of the speeding bus as a definite thing as you cross the street, not just a wave of possibility!

You said,

"The material world of quantum physics is just possibility. It is consciousness, through the conversion of possibility into actuality, that creates what we see manifest. In other words, consciousness creates the manifest world.”

In that case I see the bus and you don't. If you are creating your own reality I can fully understand why you do not see the bus and will shortly be wearing it. I think I'll stick to Newton's definite object for now thanks!

A-Gnostic: I have a permanently open mind, I just have an aversion to folks who don't label their musings as such (not you, Goswami). Serious quantum physicists don't pretend that they know the implications of the observations and paradoxes they are attempting to explain for the physical universe, let alone the metaphysical one.

Joet:

If consciousness is the ground of being, then the material world only exists due to the existence of consciousness (also called "spirit" in many religions)

The following are excerpts of an interview with Dr. Amit Goswami, a theoretical physicist who wrote the book, “The Self Aware Universe”.

“How it started happening first was that quantum objects—objects in quantum physics—began to be looked upon as waves of possibility. They are not waves in space and time. They cannot be called waves in space and time at all—they have properties which do not jibe with those of ordinary waves. So they began to be recognized as waves in potential, waves of possibility, and the potential was recognized as transcendent, beyond matter somehow.”

“In quantum physics objects are not seen as definite things, as we are used to seeing them. Newton taught us that objects are definite things, they can be seen all the time, moving in definite trajectories. Quantum physics doesn't depict objects that way at all. In quantum physics, objects are seen as possibilities, possibility waves. So then the question arises, what converts possibility into actuality? Because, when we see, we only see actual events. That's starting with us. When you see a chair, you see an actual chair, you don't see a possible chair.”

“Now this is called the "quantum measurement paradox." It is a paradox because who are we to do this conversion? Because after all, in the materialist paradigm we don't have any causal efficacy. We are nothing but the brain, which is made up of atoms and elementary particles. So how can a brain which is made up of atoms and elementary particles convert a possibility wave that it itself is? It itself is made up of the possibility waves of atoms and elementary particles, so it cannot convert its own possibility wave into actuality. This is called a paradox. Now in the new view, consciousness is the ground of being. So who converts possibility into actuality? Consciousness does, because consciousness does not obey quantum physics. Consciousness is not made of material. Consciousness is transcendent. The material world of quantum physics is just possibility. It is consciousness, through the conversion of possibility into actuality, that creates what we see manifest. In other words, consciousness creates the manifest world.”

Please do not close your mind to the interconnectedness of ideas and theories that are being integrated into the new paradigm of consciousness study.

there's enough nonsense out there without any suggestion that quantum physics has anything to say on this or any other religious or biological subject.

Belief in the afterlife is nothing more than egoistic wishful thinking.

Our fragile egos cannot fathom the thought of non-existence, so we drop all sense of reason and evidence to grasp the rope of hope that religion throws into this pool of despair. Unfortunately the rope is not attached to anything of substance, and you drown anyway.

Hi Jihadist,

Thanks for including me in your list. I respect the views of those other two individuals. I have been visiting the atheist forums of Sam Harris, Susan Jacoby and the gang. I am just licking my latest wounds, waiting for another interesting topic to arrive. Actually Sam Harris' latest post is riddled with contradictions that I plan to sit down to and feast on.

I always enjoy and take the time to read your posts when I come across them. I think we could have an interesting discussion on Islam and Christianity. There are many contradictions between the two faiths on essential doctrines, although on the non-essentials we do share a lot in common, including a high view of the Sovereign God. But, although we trace our God back to the Old Testament, to Abraham and beyond, do you think we worship the same God, for in order to worship God you need to have an accurate understanding of who He is. The Lord Jesus put it very succinctly when He said,

"...true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and in truth, for they are the kind of worshipers the Father seeks. God is Spirit and His worshipers must worship in spirit and in truth." (John 4:23-24)

I would love to hear your views on these subjects if you are willing. Again, thank you for your thoughtful insights. My hope and prayer is that the Sovereign and Almighty Lord will be gracious and merciful to you!

The essence of most “religious” teachings is that consciousness is the ground of being instead of material. Of course, with the Popper-esque paradigm dominating most of the current scientific thought, materialistic science views consciousness as merely an epiphenomenon of the material brain and no more. Clearly, this perspective limits the interpretation of phenomena such as near death experiences, out of body experiences, telepathy, etc. With the recent findings in quantum mechanics, however, this purely material paradigm is becoming outdated and lacking in explanatory theories. Consciousness appears to be much more than merely the epiphenomena that materialist scientist claim. To determine if there is an afterlife one must extrapolate and theorise from different findings and theories not merely rely on one type of method of inquiry, I.e. material science.

I think that many enlightened mystics of human history have attempted to teach other people the methods necessary to be enlightened but their teachings have been co-opted by the “followers” who are self interested, egocentric and greedy people. The result of these organizers of religions is a “belief” system instead of a pure “practice” as you see in Zen. Simply “believe in this dogma and you will be rewarded” is the resulting misconception of many religion’s teachings. Jesus Christ seemed to be teaching his followers that they should be one with God and give up their entity of self in each moment. (See Matthew 6:28, Luke 17:21, John 15:13 and John17:21-23) This view seems to be similar to Buddhist thought (except the concept of God which could be interpreted as a personification of ultimate reality). Of course the followers of Christ misinterpreted his teachings in order to fulfill prophecy and to create a self-interested entity of “church”.

Can we integrate the modern theoretical physics and the essence of the teachings of Jesus Christ, the Great Buddha, etc.? If the recent interpretations of quantum mechanics are correct, then the integration has begun!

Malasia,an islamofascist country in 2007.

-People are *obligated* to put their money at so-called *islamic bank*
-Malay women(malay people 60 percent of Malasia) are *obligated* to put on *chain*/headscarf on their heads and NOT to wear *tight trousers* and *t-shirt*.
-*Fast Police*(islamic SS units) are observing people whether they keep *fasting* or not.
-Sisters(harem) and Brothers(salam) are *obligated* to sit *separated places*.Let me remind *harem-salam* is *islamic stone age mentality obligation*.
-PAS(islamofascist/taliban party of Malasia) clearly declares that if they take control *Sharia*(islamofascist stone age rules) wil be obligated to apply(some region of Malasia is already under sharia law).
-Some places under Patronas Tower re-designed as *bedouin center* and reject *modernity*
-World-wide famous singer Beyonce has been refused to come Malasia.

Darn it, The Jihadist is back and apparently has invested all that oil/terror money already this month and has time for more of her Islamic wishy-wash failing for the upteenth time to address the flaws in the foundations and founders of Islam. If said flaws were presented to the brainwashed citizens of the Islamic terror theocracy of Iran, the citizens would all be secularists in a minute.

Reading the commentary of Ayaan Hirsi Ali would be a great way to educate all Iranians. Hmmm, I wonder why her writings and book are banned in Islamic countries????

Hopefully, Ayaan Hirsi Ali receives the Nobel Peace Prize in 2008 for exposing the evil and dangers of Islam to the free world.

As always, we offer The Jihadist and her liberal Islamics a simple five step program designed to free them from 1400 years of lies and fear of Islamic death squads.

Good thing I look in. A more interesting discussion now.

Fascinating that none of the unbelievers or believers took me aside to point out that it is wrong to steal, especially from one's father. A bit slack on ethics, morals and values there. Religion is not just about belief in God, but those inconvenient things (for some) briefly and insufficently listed in the Ten Commandments.

Actually, at 15, I took that Kerouc book from my father's library, read it, and put it in my bookshelf after finishing. He came to my room, took it and put it back in his library.

But good to know everyone either don't watch pornography or to shy to admit it. Two titles were deliberately stated wrongly. The real titles are, "Behind the Green Door", and Shaving Ryan's Privates. Yes well, easy to be vulgar.

Should we worry that ethics, values and morals are less important in our personal lives and be subsumed by what we do and achieve in the public arena? After all, Clinton and Kennedy are quite randy fellows but they are good presidents in the estimation of some or many.

Meg:

Yes, brevity is the art of wit, but not striving for it here:) Just overcompensating for the loss of Pablo, Canyon Shearer, Peter Huff. They seem to have been driven out of On Faith. I do miss their posts for insights in certain beliefs. I also miss Mary Cunningham and Speed 123 the valiant Catholics against some enthusiastic atheists and anti-theists against their faith and belief.

Ahmed:

Thanks for a more honest response there. Perhaps I should consider with other religionists the possibility of giving out medals to self-congratulating and being congratulated non-believers that they don't believe any more, that they are free at last, and should be lauded for it. But for just that is a bit too much if they ar not doing anything really substantive in life and work. Like being doctors without borders, or activists for human rights or the environment.

Yes, I have read the books by Harris, Hitchens, Dennett, Dawkins before On Faith was started by WaPo and this reader started coming in to know what others think and feel about their faiths and beliefs. On atheism, am still impressed by Bertrand Russell among all atheistic writers. Weill and Wittgenstein are tremendous too whatever their personal religious or non-religious beliefs.

As being free from belief is freedom for you and from your own personal doubts and fears, all the very best then. Especially for those who felt free in mind to be the best they can be after acknowledging their non-beliefs or disbelief to themselves and others. And does this individual freedom of mind also means freeing oneself from community and collective responsibilities because others subscribe to a "cult" or adhere to "groupthink" of, (dare I say the words that made some non-believers gagged?) organised religion and God?

Ignoring state suppression by laws and other measures to coerce citizens, I will posit here the obvious - freedom is also state of mind that no one can take away unless one lets them. And obviously, one can think one is free from religion or belief, and yet one is never fully free from the state, one's temporal commitments and one's personal take on ethics, morals and values against others, even against one's fellows religionists or atheists. If one really think one is truly free in society and states, this is also a form of delusion and denial that should be look into as well.

The state, from America to China in varying degrees, is more likely to repress one's personal freedom and religious beliefs, or both and have the temporal tools to enforce them - laws, regulations etc. Unless it is a theocratic state by law or Constitution, with the double edged sword of secular and religious laws imposed on and suffocating its citizens' personal and collective freedoms.

So, what can you ever do about this believer who have faith, who believe and have no freedom at all to think, if at all believers can and do think?

Non-believers set their own standards as being smarter and better than believers. Believers have nothing to proove actually, but for the existence of God using a microscope. The bars set by non-believers is really low for believers to rise up to if we deign to rise up to such rational and logical standards.

Daniel:

Thanks for your posts. Suffering is more the focus of Hinduism and Buddhism (sangsara). Enlightenment is sough towards personal freedom from suffering and ultimately, salvation from the cycles of life.

I take it you mean life is not just an attempt to free oneself from suffering that is beyond one's control but is also self-inflicted. Perhaps that defends on one's temperament and personal will. Both Hinduism and Buddhism focus on individual suffering and englightenment/salvation from it. As you know, there are measures instituted, including medidatation/yoga for personal discipline to aid in focussing body and mind for clarity of thought and purpose.

Russell Holloway:

Groupthink is obviously everywhere. Groupthink of monotheist believers - there is a God. Groupthink of non-believers - there is no God. The most difficult to get out, as one can possibly be accused and charged with treason at worst, and the relatively milder allegations of unpatriotism is the "groupthink" forged and rammed down our throats by states - singing the National Anthem, upholding the Constitution, putting the hand on the heart in pledging allegiance to the state, ascribing to state values such as liberty, equality and fraternity and such. Even when one migrate to escape a state or secular groupthink one don't agree with, one still has to pledge allegiance to, and to swear to uphold and subscribe to the fundamental groupthink of one's new state that makes us French, British, Malaysians, Indonesians, Americans.

I had thought that non-believers ascribe "cults" for the religious types, not "groupthink." If you do remember correctly, the term "groupthink" you borrowed from that book was explicitly stated by the author to be imposed by the state. He was talking about a totalitarian state. So, lovely and trite try to imply Islam as fascistic and totatalitarian and such as hyperventilated and generalised by some neocons, and thinker-writers such as Daniel Pipes. You're not subscribing to their attempts of forging a "groupthink" on Islam and Muslims are you?

Concerned the Christian Now Liberated:

What's new pussycat? Nothing? As this is the last day of leave for Eid Al Fitr for me, and I'm recovering from all that feasting and jollity, I repeat:

There are no flaws in Islam.
Islam is perfect.
Islam is a way of life.
Convert to Islam.

Small print : I can't guarantee you'd be a flawless and fault-free Muslim. And there's that Sura - No compulsion in religion. Darn!

Okay then, I should, as Jihadist the Muslim Now Unconcerned, further infuriate you on Islam and Muslims in going again into matters that is not of primary concern to you:)

On Iran, ask the Iranians what what they did, why they did it, and what they went though. Iranians got the theocracy they wanted, they can get out of it if they wanted.

Perhaps the western mind should look at Ayatollah Khomeini and his supporters as, respectively Robespierre and the Jacobins, to grasp the Iranian Revolution a wee bit better. For one, even though French women were among the unacknowldged impetus for the French Revolution, (Storming of the Bastille, Day of the Market Women) their rights was subsequently sidelined by Robespierre and the Jacobins. These women literally lost their heads and lives too. The hardline and excessive Jacobins were too enthusiastic in starting their own reign of terror in replacing the ancien regime.

The rise of Iranian theocracy was also, in no small part, due to accumulated anger and reaction against the deposed Shah's policies and repression of his own people. Not to mention, a particular foreign country interference and hand in deposing the Iranians nationalist prime minister. Blowback time.

Likewise, the rise of the Taliban was also due the use by a certain country of Afghanistan as the battleground to wage a hot war by proxy, an ideological battle against its adversary that left Afghanistan a chaotic mess and lawless state. The Taliban, appalled, came in and restore order in the only way they know.

9/11? I would not go around rubbing 9/11 to Afghans and Iraqis if we are to consider that day and its consequence for them from their perspective. Osama and his gang brought two buildings down with, at most 3,200 dead. More innocent Afghan and Iraqi were mained or killed, more of their homes, public buildings and infrastucture bombed every day. Osama never apprehended, and more Osama type terrorists pouring into Iraq to create further havoc and deaths.

Of course, all these are the fault of Muslims in Afghanistan and Iraq (and Muslims the world over) who are now the greatest threats to civilisation as we know it. Read that as western civilisation which even Indians and Chinese, with their own most impressive civilisations, would take note, respect and but not stop thinking their own civilisations are tremendous too. Of course, Muslims thinks their own civilisation is important for them too and to value as such.

If only the Muslims would stop being so difficult! It only they would just be an agreeable lot in agreeing with everything the west tells them, what to read, how and what to think, what to believe in! If only these selfish Muslims would give up their personal and national interests for us! If only the unenlightened Muslims and their dodgy and iffy leaders would let us roll into their countries unmolested and without dissent, there would be peace on earth and civilisation as we know it (which one?), would be saved. Hallejujah!!!!

And finally, pussycat Concy Christy Libby .... want to start a group against the defamation and degradation of women who are nuns, porn stars, pole dancers and prostitutes by their own choice? And also to defend and free them if they are forced into it against their will? What is one's ethics, morals and values then, on this? Surely this does not call one to believe or disbelief in God? Only to be a humanist who believe in freedom and rights. But whose rights and freedom are more important - Self? Others? Both in one's personal estimation?

Yakety yak. Yakety yak. LOL

Thank you and best regards

J

Ours is the only species to have evolved to the degree of development whereby we have the cognizance of our own death; and the elaboration of language through which explanations as such are imagined and created. The sub-consciousness then seeks to defer death through explanations of a transcendence to our Being. Bounded by history, people struggle to save presence by attempting to create or find a saving presence. This quest furthers the effort to deny death.

God exists, but only as a concept.

Hume suggests God as well as the self is a fiction required by our nature. The problem of religion is then not whether God exists, but whether we need the idea of God in order to exist, or as Pascal asks, who has the better mode of existence, the believer or the non-believer.

We are offered current understanding of the immanence of life by Geertz, who defines religions as specific systems of symbols, “which act to establish pervasive, and long-lasting moods and motivations in men by formulating conceptions of a general order of existence and clothing these with such an aura of factuality that the moods and motivations seem uniquely realistic”. He also suggests that nature and culture are not unrelated because it is precisely the indeterminacy of the genetic code that makes the cultural code necessary. Summarizing, the cultural analogous of the gene is called a ‘meme’ a “unit of cultural inheritance, hypothesized as analogous to the particulate gene, and as naturally selected by virtue of the genotype or phenotype. Genotype designating the “genetic constitution of an individual organism, as distinguished from its physical appearance.” Phenotype specifies the “genetically determined and observable appearance of an organism, especially as considered with respect to all possible genetically influenced expressions of one specific character.” The evolutionary process is directed to the perpetuation of the genetic code rather than to the promotion of individual organisms.

The society of man is an imperfect, ongoing scientific experiment. Man has “evolved’ systems of religions since the onset of civilization, ‘progressing’ from worshp of animals and the various naturally occurring entities, i.e. the sun, the moon and the stars, through polytheism to monotheism. Monotheism, in the current stage of evolution (that word again) brings us today a single god in many different forms and versions, i.e. Islam, Christian, Jewish, etc. In the truest sense of the word, religion has evolved as has physical man. Both are still in an imperfect state; the physical man and the spiritual man. The danger of modern religion is that, through ignorance or dogma, it presupposes tht man at the present is in its final form, i.e. an act of perfection by an allmighty god. That evil (the claim of perfection) is central to the various religions, each one of which lays claim to be the chosen few, and, as such, is the evolutionary equivalent of a lethal gene. I rest my case on the countless number of bodies that religion in its myriad forms have strewn about the world, past and present.

Meg,

consider that "right" is always only an approximation, sometimes even e fallacy. Where there is no elbow room for meaning and understanding, there is no life. A wheel and an axis have to have some "play" or "leeway" to funcion. If they are mathematically exact, they will come to a grinding halt. No group of people can live together if everybody wants to always be "right". Modern technology even cannot function withour "fuzzy logic". A company without a tolerance zone is doomed.

To sum it up: "Right" can be wrong.

Thanks Gerry,
Sometimes the send button is too easy to push, I wish at times I would have given it more thought.

Blessings,
terra

What's so bad about getting it right?
Not a thing Meg, heathen does not mean faithless or godless...it merely means a country person that was not Christian..

Have a good day,
terra

Terra Gazelle;

Here's what my little book of word origins says.

"Heathen (OE) Etymologically, a heathen is 'someone who lives on the heath'...that is,someone who lives in a wild up country area,and is uncivilized and savage (the word was derived in prehistoric Germanic times from 'khaithiz'(heath),and is also represented in German 'heide', Dutch 'heiden', and Swedish and Danish 'Heden').
It's specific use for 'person who is not a Christian' seems to be directly inspired by Latin 'paganus' (source of English pagan), which likewise originally meant 'country dweller'.
(Etymologically,'savages' too were to begin with dwellers in 'wild woodland' areas,while 'civilized' or 'urbane' people lived in cities or towns.)
The now archaic 'hoyden' (high spirited girl) was borrowed from Dutch 'heiden' (heathen)."

From the Arcade Dictionary of Word Origins,by John Ayto,published by Arcade Publising.NY.

What's so bad about getting it right?
Take care Terra.

A guy who thinks "god invented dictionaries" is unable to think one single authentic thought worth answering. Unsurpassable stupidity.

Terra, I may not be of your opinion, but strangely the pagans (heathens) are the most sympathetic crowd of all believers in any religion on these threads, as compared to the aggressive bigots desperately trying to defend their undefensible "truths", whatever it may consist of, Christian or Muslim.

Mohamed,
Belittling others does not win your argument.And as far as it goes...whose "God" invented the dictionary? The one that held the pen or the one who turned the pages?

A fool says what he knows, and a wise man knows what he says.

terra

Terra writes:

"Pagan" is a Latin word meaning the people of the pagus or countryside (who are more likely to cling to ancient ways)."

Question: do you feel that an idea or belief being "ancient" somehow adds truth to said idea or belief?

I ask this because I have friends (a married couple) who have a deep belief in god & Jesus but also are wrapped up in astrology and bits and pieces of what I'd guess you'd call paganism (they believe in witches, for example). I've asked them about this, and their rationale is that "the ancients had secret knowledge that we've lost."

I find that risible, but for them it forms a basis for believing, well, anything, as long as you can show it isn't a "modern" thought.

Any thoughts on that?

Terra Gazelle;
Miss Gazelle,you are an idiot.Why do you think God invented Dictionaries? Can you imagine the turmoil if we all made up our own words? Are you so afraid to be shown to be mistaken? Is your teeny weenie ego not up to it? Oh you poor baby,You poor baby.

It seems to me the whole business of free will
is a little overwrought. In small ways, we may seem to have it on occasion, but why then do people go throughout entire lifetimes doing stuff they don't want to do?

Well, they're not fully in control of all the contingenies of their infinitely complex lives. The unpredictable just keeps happening! Of course that includes beliefs foisted off on them before the age of reason (and reasonableness). And yes, it does take quite a struggle to shuck off and discard outmoded, unworkable, self-defeating beliefs. Many times one feels great relief and a sense of freedom when successful.

If this happens late enough in life, old beliefs may not be replaced - except in the form of non-belief in the 'old' used-to-be. On the other hand, younger believers generally replace the old with the new. I suppose the new seems true compared to the old, but how to know??

Is this an act of free will - or just another reflexive response to 'outside'forces?? We'll all remember that BF Skinner (the reknowned behavioral psychologist) disavowed any concept of free will whatsoever. Behavior of all kinds (including the mental/cognitive realm) was simply a conditioned & learned response to intervening/outside stimuli....well of course, many always have and will continue to dispute this.

Schools of psychology are legion - who knows how many?? George Gurdjeiff of the esoteric Fourth Way school (see his books and also Ouspensky) claimed that humanity was essentially robotic and mechanical in the extreme (fully asleep without knowing it) - transcending this conditioning and reaching the true realm of 'free will' where a doer is actually capable of doing anything at all independently was the work of a lifetime, and a very high level of spiritual attainment. He does not have a very optimistic view of the human animal in general!!

Free will in the large sense of completely independent and autonomous action is probably an illusion for most. Those that actually attain this state are probably unknown and unknowable - what powers they must possess!!

Gerry wrote (in response to Daniel):

"You are positing that we have no free will whatsoever. I very strongly disagree: We, and the universe, would thus be a dead automaton running off predictably in every instance, a philosophy that has prevailed around 1900 but which nobody really cultivates anymore.

Even the most "scientific-superstitious" scientists hesitate in front of such a horror. And I think you might consider Heisenberg and others, who do not postulate a complete determination, in spite of the "laws" of nature."

I'd like to comment on that if I may. I have a slightly different take on free will. If you actually think about free will, most people's concept of free will makes no sense at all.

If you think about it, to have free will, your thought processes must be at least partially deterministic.

When I exercise my free will, I think about what choices I have and what the consequences of those choices, and I choose based on which consequences that are most in line with my goals. There is nothing in that process that requires non-determinism. In fact if any of the steps in that process were non-deterministic, the process would be messed up and I would not be making the choice that I really wanted to make.

Free will is the ability for you to make choices that have an impact on what happens. It allows you to *determine* the future at least partially. The more non-deterministic the process that connects your thoughts to the results of your choices is, the less control you have. I.e. the less free will you have.

Determinism is necessary for free will, non-determinism is incompatible with free will.

That's exactly the opposite of what most people believe, but I don't think most people actually think about what free will means.

Think about it!

Realist

I can't define a word when that word defines me? heck you say??

Sorry but I choose to.

The hebrews invaded the Pagan lands, killing the people, stealing the lands, destroying the temples and shrines...then came the Christians.

The Christians invaded the Heathen lands...and made war, killing and stealing and forcing conversions.

The Christians forced conversions,destroyed cultures, took our holy days, our temples and our shrines...they even took Goddesses and because the people would not leave them made them into saints. They called the old folks evil and our gods demons. They defined what was according to them...Now you think you can define what we are...taking what we use to define ourselves.

I can choose what words I define myself...you can not take those words. We took the name Pagan and Heathen and wore it proudly when people spit on us or kept us from our civil rights. Our Pagan military men and women could not have Pagan on their dog tags, we had to fight for it. Our Pagan men and women that died in war could not be buried under our Pagan symbol, for 10 years we fought. We finally won...You can not use those words that others fought and died under. It does not belong to you.

So yes, I can define the word for the rest of you. You have your own word..Atheist. Take it use it..and don't take ours to be cute or bring a smile. Those words were too hard fought to bring a bit of tolerance to.

terra

My first sentence should say "heathen" not "pagan".
My error.

Terra Gazelle;

As I said earlier,the word pagan has several definitions according to the Oxford Reference Dictionary.
Words evolve,like most other things.Time changes words original meanings,through usage.
Through usage people have the final say in what a word means,and the ORD mentions 5 or 6 of them.
Nowadays,people obviously mean different things when they use the word heathen.Your definition is fine,and so is Meg's.
You can't define the word for the rest of us.

"Pagan" is a Latin word meaning the people of the pagus or countryside (who are more likely to cling to ancient ways). "Heathen" is a Germanic word meaning people of the heath, or wilderness, who were likely to be doing the same thing.

What ever your dictionary says that those words came to be known to mean...Heathen was country person same as Pagan.

Both these words came to mean Godless after the Christians took power and had a hard time getting those country people to turn away from their old gods.They made our gods into devils...so we were then seen to have no god. My ancestors were called Pagani.. hicks, rednecks, a backward person who was not modern because they would not worship the new god.

As a Pagan I am not faithless and knowing Heathens, they are also not faithless. So call yourselves what you wish, but try not to further misconceptions about those of us who are Pagans and Heathen.

terra

Drew

You just beat me to it.I was about to tell Terra that she was wrong,and should consult a dictionary before jumping in to contradict another's use of a word.
I am a heathen.I am an atheist.I am a person who has no religion.I am also a person who uses dictionaries.
Thanks Terra for trying to make me a more articulate person,but I'm doing fine on my own.

Terra Gazelle;

My Oxford reference dictionary says that Heathen also means "not having a religion".
Like many words,it has more than just one definition.
The first definition is "a person who does not belong to a widely held religion";and another is,
"an unenlightened person;a person regarded as lacking culture or moral principles".
there are one or two other definitions too.
I am a heathen in that I do not have a religion;though I usually call myself an atheist.

Meg,
A Heathen is not a faithless person. They are not Christian, but they do have faith...a Heathen is a Pagan of Northern Europe. They are Pagans...such as the Norse Asatru. Oh and Meg, the Norse Heathens were anything but harmless, they were warriors to arm against.

I really do not think you meant you were Pagan...but atheist. Heathens are not atheist.

terra

Terry,

It was a reponse specifically to those who believe in Catholic "mumbo-jumbo", analogous to believing in "pwtfft"s and the "demons of the demented".

Congratulations YoYo on rejecting your programming. Free will is alive and well.

Concerned - was this a cynic's response to anything with a vaguely religious motif, or were
you just debunking the phenomenon of 'stigmata'
based on your own irrefutable evidence? The hypocrisy and pecuniary opportunism of the Cappucians in this regard is probably a different topic altogether.

Afterall, we weren't speaking of causes, divine or otherwise - just pointing to a curiously inexplicable happening among ' a chosen few' as you point out. Of course it does have a religious theme, but the study of religion is certainly as valid as other subject matter.

As we know from our friend Daniel, quantum physics, as the ultimate predictive measuring tool in science, is strictly man-made based on what we observe and designed to measure limited phenomena, rather than getting at the heart of ultimate reality - not to be compared to religion, which is totally subjective and experience-based .... a different kind of metaphysics altogether.

Or, as Bertrand Russell put it: 'mathematics may be defined as a subject in which we never know what we are talking about, nor whether what we are saying is true'.

Religion as a human creation is widely studied academically as a sociological and psychological
phenomenon without passing judgement as to it's inherent 'objective' validity one way or another.
People often have strange attributes - 'stigmata'
is one such.....now bi-location and levitation will require further study.

all the best.....

Its like we're all computers
and our religious beliefs are programed into us
throughout our childhoods.
What we end up believing has nothing to do with truth,
and everything to do with the program.
And different religion, different program.
If I had been born and raised in a Muslim country,
today I'd praying 5 times a day facing Mecca:
and would consider Christians to be infidels.
Had I been raised a Hindu,today I might be
burning incense and praying to Vishnu. Had I been
raised in Utah by Mormons,I'd now be a Mormon.
in Ireland,probably a devout catholic.
We all believe what we were raised to believe;
and what our community believes.
Why don't we get it?
Religions are just passed-on customs and beliefs
from ancient times that cannot all claim to be true.
The likelyhood is none of it is true.
If it wasn't programed into our heads as kids,
we'd never believe it as intelligent adults,
hearing about God,or Allah,or Vishnu,for the first time.
It would sound perfectly ridiculous.

Thanks Ahmed,

Another vote for free will.

Bobby B.:

Interesting essay Susan.

Of course there is no life after death.Just death.
If there was no death,there would be no religion.
The fear of death,for oneself as well as for loved ones,
is religion's bread and butter.
The church and the mosque and the synagogue offer eternal life for believers only.
Hell for everyone else.
Like other posters,I find this transparently ludicrous,
and I'm continually amazed that people actually believe it.I can only attribute it to fear.

I had religion,but now I don't.

It feels good and I dont have headaches like before.
I have lost Allah and now I think better and make more sense deep inside myself.
The books I read here are not allowed whare I came from.And David Hume opened my eyes.And Sam Harris too.
All my life I was an idiot.I believed all stupid ideas.so everybody did.
When it is all around you it is very difficult to think in other ways.
But now I live in UK,and work and play with people who don't talk or think about religion and gods.
It is a beautiful world with no god.A honest world.
an uncomplicated world. I am happy like never before.
I understand now.I am only sorry I wasted time believing lies.

E.Favorite;

yeah...best to be up front;people do adjust to blunt honesty.Heathen works for me,it's raw and real.
It also has a nice eccentric touch to it,that sometimes disarms people,and makes them smile to be around someone so quirky.(At least that's how I read the smiles).
I'm a heathen but I'm harmless.
Keep up the goodfight,EFave.

Meg: "I realized I had become a Born-Again Heathen, returned to my original, natural, faithless state."

Born-again Heathen -- I love it. Do you use that term when people ask what your religion is?

If so, how do they respond?

If not - please consider it and then tell us what happened.

Meg,

Thanks for the very well written post. Your theme follows closely that of my good friend Daniel.

But I must agree with Gerry. We have free will to choose for ourselves, as evidenced by the fact that you, Gerry, I and many others have managed to escape from our early indoctrination.

There is still hope for our friend Daniel.

Stigmata????

You must be kidding!!! Padre Pio was embellished by his order, the Cappuchins to fill the coffers. They even got him "sainted". And now you can even buy "Saint" Pio baseball hats, tee shirts, sweatshirts, and socks covered with the "blood" of the stigmata. Gross!!!

Strange how it is only the nuns, monks and uneducated Catholic peasant children that are the ones privy to such gifts/visits from the higher or nether worlds!!! Hmmm, too much fasting and not enough sleep followed by staring at the sun???? And greedy local bishops???

John Stuart Mill;

"My father's rejection of all that is called religious belief was not,as
many might suppose,primarily a matter of logic and evidence: the grounds for
it were moral, more than intellectual. He found it impossible to believe
that a world so full of evil was the work of a God combining infinite
power with perfect goodness and righteousness.
His aversion to religion,in the sense usually attached to the term,was of
the same kind with that of Lucretius; he regarded it with the feelings due
not to mere mental delusion but to a great moral evil.
It would have been wholly inconsistent with my father's ideas of duty to
allow me to acquire impressions contrary to his convictions and feelings
respecting religion;and he impressed on me from the first that the manner in
which the world came into existence was a subject on which nothing was
known."

John Stuart Mill quoted in "Why I Am Not A Christian",by Bertrand Russell.

The ubiquity and intransigence of belief in religious dogma is hardly a mystery.
Parents unwittingly practice the “big lie” on gullible and credulous young, thereby programming their read-only memories (brain-washing them) with belief systems with which they, themselves, were earlier brain-washed. In this obvious way, children grow up with the unshakable conviction faith is the one area of humanity exempt from critical inquiry.

Thus, the beliefs of the parents are instilled in their progeny even unto the seventieth generation.

Catholic parents beget Catholics, Protestant parents beget Protestants. Jewish parents beget Jews. Mormon Parents beget Mormons. Muslim parents beget Muslims. Wiccan parents beget Wiccans. And genetic inheritance has nothing whatsoever to do with it. It’s not a matter of nature but of quasi-natural nurture.

Occasionally evangelism or delusional epiphany ostensibly convert an individual from one belief system to another, but in virtually every case, the core cultural imperatives associated with their “cradle faith” will remain largely intact. That is why, for example, many fallen away Christians continue, as if by knee-jerk reflex, to behave impulsively in supposedly “Christian” ways.

It all began with a comprehension of death which egotistical humans deplore and do not share with other animals. By providing the “sure and certain hope” of life after death, manipulators in all ages and places have invoked a “soul wrenching” tool to bend others to their temporal will. Never mind that a thoughtful person might find such promised eternal life to be quite tedious.

I consider myself a Born-Again Heathen. Like everyone else, I was born a Heathen without any sort of faith. By the chance of the draw, my parents were Christians and instilled their religious beliefs and related cultural value system in me - their faith by precept and their value system by their behavioral example. Monkey see, monkey do.

Eventually, I came to see my instilled faith as nonsense and was ultimately able to reconcile myself with the reality of my mortality - that when life is over, it’s all over. At that point, I realized I had become a Born-Again Heathen, returned to my original, natural, faithless state. Nevertheless, I continue to practice “turn the other cheek” as a part of my cultural legacy. This is perversely nonsensical because I know how that imperative was imprinted and fully understand intellectually that it is now known to be contraindicated. So much for free will.

It now seems clear to me that “free will” is an illusion and that everything, including everything I am and do, is deterministic - the inexorable result of cumulative antecedent genetics, experience, and possibly influences which, albeit not consciously perceived, have helped to shape my subconscious from which all my decisions actually emanate.

Daniel,

may I suggest you think over your views once again.

You are positing that we have no free will whatsoever. I very strongly disagree: We, and the universe, would thus be a dead automaton running off predictably in every instance, a philosophy that has prevailed around 1900 but which nobody really cultivates anymore.

Even the most "scientific-superstitious" scientists hesitate in front of such a horror. And I think you might consider Heisenberg and others, who do not postulate a complete determination, in spite of the "laws" of nature.

I am convinced that I arrived at my way of thinking after working through all the influences you mentioned, and I agree with, AGAINST many cultural and personal influences.

Of course I am aware, one can even spin such an autonomous development of a person around so that it appears to be a mirage.

The (logical mutually exclusive) light dualism might induce you to think about a dualism on a higher level, with freedom AND causality.

I still believe in clear, honest thinking, avoiding logical games along the line of Achilles and the turtle.

Gerry

I do not think we are "brainwashed" up to a certain point, until we "break free" and then we begin to freely choose our beliefs.

Assuming the heritage of beliefs passed along to you is not being brainwashed. It is not a malevolent process such as brainwashing implies; it is just the way things are. Your parents teach you what they believe; how could you expect them to do otherwise?

But even when you have reached the point where you no longer believe what they taught you, you are merely transitioning from one aspect of your heritage to another, from what your parents have taught you, to what others have told you, and from your own experiences, which you have not freely chosen.

And then, when you finally come to the point where you are choosing your beliefs, are you really? Not really; you cannot choose; inside of your head, there is an autonomic processing mechanism which produces your beliefs for you; and even if you try to "choose" differently, you cannot. That is why, even when people are tortured for their heretical beliefs, they cannot change them; your ideas and beliefs appear, by unknown mechanisms, and are resistent to your ability or desire to change them or wish them away.