4 ms·

> Lets keep religion out of HN, shall we? As a semi-religious person [0], I would purely love to see religious tenets discussed dispassionately on HN, for a co

by dctoedt 10y ago

> Lets keep religion out of HN, shall we? As a semi-religious person [0], I would purely love to see religious tenets discussed dispassionately on HN, for a couple of reasons: 1. I've long thought that a corollary of the Summary of the Law [1] is "face the facts," that is, base your beliefs on evidence to the extent possible; as a group, the HN crowd is quite good at examining evidence from various perspectives. 2. Much and even most of the HN crowd is quite interested in knowing "what's going on," which ultimately extends to why is there something rather than nothing? [2]. I would greatly value the insights of others in that area. -------------- [0] I describe myself as semi-religious because I do try to base my beliefs on evidence; this is reflected in the title of my religion blog (largely inactive in recent years), "The Questioning Christian," at http://www.QuestioningChristian.org http://www.QuestioningChristian.org . The right-hand column there lists some of my favorite essays. [1] See http://www.questioningchristian.com/2004/11/facing_facts.html http://www.questioningchristian.com/2004/11/facing_facts.htm... [2] For my "naïve conjecture" about what's going on (to borrow a phrase from the Rev. Dr. John Polkinghorne FRS, an English particle physicist turned Anglican priest), see http://www.questioningchristian.com/2007/02/another_way_to_.html http://www.questioningchristian.com/2007/02/another_way_to_....

nsomaru 10y ago
'Religion' is etymologically related to connotations of joining and binding. This implies some sort of separation, and a process of joining. Similarly, 'yoga' (by which I do not mean physical exercise) is etymologically related to connotations of union (from 'yuj'). Again, the implication is separation and a process of union. If you take a serious look at your own experience (the evidence), you will arrive at a similar conclusion to Descartes; roughly, that the evidence of one's senses cannot be taken at face value because they provide similar evidences in a dream which is understood to be entirely illusory upon waking up. Alas, most of 'Western' (I do apologise in advance to anyone who thinks I'm being too liberal with that word) thought takes the waking state to be absolute, and dream and deep sleep to be subsets of this state. This is an assumption but it runs so deep that it will be difficult for most to see what I'm trying to point out. First consider that the three states of consciousness experienced (waking, dream and deep sleep) are completely different modes; that is, the dreamer can neither conceive the existence of a waking world which is more 'real' than his current experience, nor will he readily admit that his experience is illusory...until he wakes up and becomes the waker. At this point the illusory nature of the dream cannot be doubted. The money in the dream cannot service debts of the waking state. Consider, then, that questions as to the origin of the world, the purpose of existence and the nature of God may arise only during dream and waking, because in these states there exists thought and thus by implication a mind -- the conclusion is then drawn that in the absence of a mind, there is also absence of a world (as in deep sleep). Thus one may conclude that the 3 states of waking, dream and deep sleep have relative and not absolute reality. It will, however, be noticed that there is a substratum integrating these varying experiences and arrogating them. These are all evidences available to any human being and perhaps could lead one to believe that there might be something to religion after all, beyond the paraphernalia of clothing, places of worship and specific texts. "The kingdom of heaven is within you; he that findeth his Self shall know it"
- nitrogen 10y ago
  As counterevidence I would submit lucid dreaming, various half-awake/half-asleep states, and, the strongest evidence of all that sleep is a behavior of a physical brain and not an entrance to another world, the study of neuroscience.
  - nsomaru 10y ago
    Your views are valid if you're considering the other states of consciousness as subsets of the waking state. It's hard to extricate oneself from this thought pattern. On the contrary, it is possible to dream that one is engaging in neuroscience, even hook up (dream) friends and family to some kind of brain monitor and prove that they are themselves asleep/dreaming. That doesn't change the fact that the entire dream is illusory. One can never see one's own brain while dreaming or sleeping, it is upon waking that we rely on the testimony of others and thus, again, on the existence of a mind. In this way, thought precedes the brain, whose very appearance occurs in the medium of thought. This is inverted as compared to the Western view that brains produce thoughts. Thoughts produce brains! I'm not sure (and happy to be corrected) if lucid dreaming is well defined enough that we can say it is awareness of the illusory nature of the dream, while dreaming. Dream money, earned lucidly or not, cannot service debts of the waking state. And vice versa! Hence different modes of experience.
joveian 10y ago
1) There is still always the question of where to start when looking at evidence. In terms of the question that started this thread, different people find it worthwhile (or not) to spend time considering particular questions based on past experience and assumptions. For people wanting a good place to discuss various topics, is that really what you want or do you want people who don't value that discussion to value it? What prevents people who want to discuss the topic from actually doing so? Possibly that many more people are willing to offer a piece of their perspective than spend much (or any) time considering alternatives? That is basically what I have to offer on religion. I looked at your site and a few things I didn't see are a discussion about how identifying as Christian affects your daily life, how you came to consider Christianity as an option, how "cosmic coincidences" are evidence of any god, or even if so how those cosmic coincidences translate into your particular religious actions such as quoting the bible. My perspective is that most religions have been spread primarily by violence and these violent interactions explain the overall picture of religion in the world today independent of the truth of the deistic claims of any particular religion (but potentially related to effectiveness of particular religions as a psychological hack to enable optimal violence for spreading that religion). 2) Why do you consider "a creator" as helping with that question? I am not particularly interested in "why something rather than nothing?" because I can't even imagine what a satisfying answer could possibly be.
- reitanqild 10y ago
  > My perspective is that most religions have been spread primarily by violence and these violent interactions explain the overall picture of religion in the world today Please note that originally Christianity spread in a peer-to-peer way until the Roman empire picked it up. Even after then a lot of people have spread Christianity not by forcing people but by presenting it as a better option. Personally I try to avoid forcing my views unto people ("many people who try to become fishers of men end up like scarecrows"). Instead I try to make an example and if anyone like what they see they are free to ask.

by dctoedt 10y ago

nsomaru 10y ago

'Religion' is etymologically related to connotations of joining and binding. This implies some sort of separation, and a process of joining. Similarly, 'yoga' (by which I do not mean physical exercise) is etymologically related to connotations of union (from 'yuj'). Again, the implication is separation and a process of union. If you take a serious look at your own experience (the evidence), you will arrive at a similar conclusion to Descartes; roughly, that the evidence of one's senses cannot be taken at face value because they provide similar evidences in a dream which is understood to be entirely illusory upon waking up. Alas, most of 'Western' (I do apologise in advance to anyone who thinks I'm being too liberal with that word) thought takes the waking state to be absolute, and dream and deep sleep to be subsets of this state. This is an assumption but it runs so deep that it will be difficult for most to see what I'm trying to point out. First consider that the three states of consciousness experienced (waking, dream and deep sleep) are completely different modes; that is, the dreamer can neither conceive the existence of a waking world which is more 'real' than his current experience, nor will he readily admit that his experience is illusory...until he wakes up and becomes the waker. At this point the illusory nature of the dream cannot be doubted. The money in the dream cannot service debts of the waking state. Consider, then, that questions as to the origin of the world, the purpose of existence and the nature of God may arise only during dream and waking, because in these states there exists thought and thus by implication a mind -- the conclusion is then drawn that in the absence of a mind, there is also absence of a world (as in deep sleep). Thus one may conclude that the 3 states of waking, dream and deep sleep have relative and not absolute reality. It will, however, be noticed that there is a substratum integrating these varying experiences and arrogating them. These are all evidences available to any human being and perhaps could lead one to believe that there might be something to religion after all, beyond the paraphernalia of clothing, places of worship and specific texts. "The kingdom of heaven is within you; he that findeth his Self shall know it"

nitrogen 10y ago
As counterevidence I would submit lucid dreaming, various half-awake/half-asleep states, and, the strongest evidence of all that sleep is a behavior of a physical brain and not an entrance to another world, the study of neuroscience.
- nsomaru 10y ago
  Your views are valid if you're considering the other states of consciousness as subsets of the waking state. It's hard to extricate oneself from this thought pattern. On the contrary, it is possible to dream that one is engaging in neuroscience, even hook up (dream) friends and family to some kind of brain monitor and prove that they are themselves asleep/dreaming. That doesn't change the fact that the entire dream is illusory. One can never see one's own brain while dreaming or sleeping, it is upon waking that we rely on the testimony of others and thus, again, on the existence of a mind. In this way, thought precedes the brain, whose very appearance occurs in the medium of thought. This is inverted as compared to the Western view that brains produce thoughts. Thoughts produce brains! I'm not sure (and happy to be corrected) if lucid dreaming is well defined enough that we can say it is awareness of the illusory nature of the dream, while dreaming. Dream money, earned lucidly or not, cannot service debts of the waking state. And vice versa! Hence different modes of experience.

joveian 10y ago

1) There is still always the question of where to start when looking at evidence. In terms of the question that started this thread, different people find it worthwhile (or not) to spend time considering particular questions based on past experience and assumptions. For people wanting a good place to discuss various topics, is that really what you want or do you want people who don't value that discussion to value it? What prevents people who want to discuss the topic from actually doing so? Possibly that many more people are willing to offer a piece of their perspective than spend much (or any) time considering alternatives? That is basically what I have to offer on religion. I looked at your site and a few things I didn't see are a discussion about how identifying as Christian affects your daily life, how you came to consider Christianity as an option, how "cosmic coincidences" are evidence of any god, or even if so how those cosmic coincidences translate into your particular religious actions such as quoting the bible. My perspective is that most religions have been spread primarily by violence and these violent interactions explain the overall picture of religion in the world today independent of the truth of the deistic claims of any particular religion (but potentially related to effectiveness of particular religions as a psychological hack to enable optimal violence for spreading that religion). 2) Why do you consider "a creator" as helping with that question? I am not particularly interested in "why something rather than nothing?" because I can't even imagine what a satisfying answer could possibly be.

reitanqild 10y ago
> My perspective is that most religions have been spread primarily by violence and these violent interactions explain the overall picture of religion in the world today Please note that originally Christianity spread in a peer-to-peer way until the Roman empire picked it up. Even after then a lot of people have spread Christianity not by forcing people but by presenting it as a better option. Personally I try to avoid forcing my views unto people ("many people who try to become fishers of men end up like scarecrows"). Instead I try to make an example and if anyone like what they see they are free to ask.