God and Humans

(An Endgame)

Genea

There may be a scientifically proven explanation for everything theological, but it changes fuck all. We will still express our thoughts/feelings in a way that seems tailored to our individuality. Religion, and the word religion, are not going anywhere ever. They will simply change definition in the pattern they always have. We are just on a certain step of a repeating cycle. Progressive, maybe, but repetitious all the same.

If this is at all new to you and the thought is fresh in your experience then, friend, your questions are just beginning. ...I would encourage you to keep writing about it.

John Dishwasher

The thrust of the essay is really to try to name the underlying urge that drives this constant reconfiguring of the pattern. What is it that survives through these "repeating cycles" that you mention. What never changes? The fact that the patterns exist and repeat is really sort of a given. And I suggest pretty clearly that religion will last as long as humans do. In the essay I've just tried to identify the thing beneath it all, the thing which we all share, but which we all overlook because of its everpresence and simplicity.

I'm not even sure I would call the patterns progressive, though they may seem so to us. That basic search is no different today than it was 500 hundred years ago, or even 2,000. Shakespeare, Sophocles and others make this pretty clear.

Genea

Well, I imagine we all, atheists and theists alike, enjoy justification for getting up in the morning. That may very well be the only significance biologically speaking.

Well for the first time in recorded history an empire revers and protects the rights of all of it's citizens as equal regardless gender, ethnicity or beliefs, at least superficially. It may be a farce. but at least it's a good step in the right direction. It may not be "religious" exactly but I feel that it does correlate to humane interests/morality/ethics/etc..

Plus there's the development of deity on a evolutionary table. God goes from animal to anthropomorphic humanoid to groups of humanoids to single humanoid and now transcended to concept like "love". It may revolve back around but I'd like to think that there's some kind of progress. Who knows how the "deities" and "themes" we worship effect us in the grand scheme of things?

We're only about 8000 years in to our intellectual progression. (That we know of: written history and whatnot) I like to give our overall mentality the benefit of the doubt.

John Dishwasher

In the sphere of how we organize ourselves, yes, our evolution has been progressive. I'm talking more about the things that motivate us individually and personally. Our most fundamental and visceral core doesn't really change. But your point is taken. We're kinda talking about two different manifestations of the same thing: progress on the macro scale or the micro scale, on the societal level or the personal. I hear what your saying.

Roscoe

We all share the same sanatana dharma (eternal occupation). The dharma of water is its wetness, the dharma of fire is heat and light. Our dharma is service. Whether I want to or not, I have to make myself useful by serving someone or something. This is the innate fundamental principle shared by all.

John Dishwasher

Would not this need for service be a sort of bondage? The human need I talk about in the essay is kind of neutral in this sense. I mean, service may fulfill your need. But your need might also be fulfilled by something less interactive.

Hansel's Griddle

Everything that's natural is natural. Eh? Eh?

Roscoe

To the degree we are ruled by the material desires that direct our mind and senses, we are in bondage. We all need to be happy. Some settle for the illusory temporary world. Those who are more fortunate strive to know something about their eternal existence.

John Dishwasher

But it seems more simple than that to me. We just want peace of mind, as I say in the essay. And it is not universally true that one has to "strive" to attain this peace of mind. In fact, some attain peace of mind by learning how to "not strive." I don't believe that "not_striving" is settling for the illusory world. Finding indifference and equanimity in the face of all that besets you is something that can be "god_neutral." It does not have to be tied to any certain belief system or diety.

Further, you obviously know a lot about what you're talking about, and I certainly appreciate and welcome your input, but I'm trying to define something much simpler than your perspective. I'm going for the most basal simple need that we all seek, and saying that all people regardless their religious beliefs or religious abstention seek that need. When you say accepting this simple need is "settling," And that one has to "strive" to escape it, your pulling us back into the debate of why and how this should be done, which resurrects all the complications of religion, and rekindles the debate between believers and atheists.

Ramjet

JOHN DISHWASHER wrote: "Finding indifference and equanimity in the face of all that besets you is something that can be "god_neutral." It does not have to be tied to any certain belief system or deity."

So says the man who is not tied to any certain belief system or deity.

John Dishwasher

Are you sure about that? I think it's possible to be tied to a belief system and still recognize that not everyone has to be tied to a belief system to find peace. Note that I say "can be god_neutral" and "does not have to be." That is a qualified statement.

Ramjet

Am I sure about what exactly? You're the one making the assertion. Persons who are "tied to (a) certain belief system or deity" are likely so because they strongly feel that being so provides something unattainable by other means.

John Dishwasher

RAMJET WROTE: "So says the man who is not tied to any certain belief system or deity."

I thought because of this quote that you had come to the conclusion that I am not tied to any certain belief system or deity. My response was asking if you "are sure about that" and further suggesting why it may or may not be true, (or, really, why whether it is true or not is beside the point.) :)

Ramjet

What does "peace of mind" mean to you?

John Dishwasher

Well, what does 'green' mean to me? I mean, "peace of mind" is itself a description. So it is kind of hard to describe. I can say "green" is a blend of blue and yellow. But what does that mean? I can say "peace of mind" is feeling "peaceful" in my "mind, " but what does that mean? If you're asking me what gives me peace of mind, or, in other words__in the context of the essay and all these posts over the last couple days__what is or is not 'god' to me, well, (And I invite you to pounce on me for this cowardly answer) I think that's beside the point.

Ramjet

Well given that your whole essay really hangs on this "peace of mind" phrase, I would hope for some real thought on this An attempt to express as precisely as possible what the phrase means to you. Especially in the context of throwing around words like "God" we need to at least offer some definition of terms before any progressive discussion can take place. Of course not everyone is always sincerely interested in a real examination of perspectives.

Genea

I suppose we could pick apart our definitions of sincerity now. Regardless, John is at least putting more effort in pretending to examine perspectives a little more than some others. His stance, as of yet, seems honest insofar that he has not prescribed a definite "end game" to his thesis, but has a notion of possibility that is open for analysis. Which to me indicates that his curiosity is genuine and without agenda... I, for one am interested.

The term "peace of mind" conjures all types of subjective imagery and ergo flawed as a basis for analysis. Unless of course we can determine a continuity, and I believe that to be half the point. Much like "green' there is a universal association, albeit relative, but consistent enough for the purpose of conversation. As it IS relative it's true some may miss out... Fuck'em. I'm not too proud to admit that I'm selfish enough to continue without any regard for those who can't share my vantage point on the issue. I think that attempting to determine "value:God" may be futile, but fun. I can forgive a few semantic issues.

Ramjet

If we're to have any sort of meaningful understanding, it's certainly behooves us to elaborate on the terms we're using. If I say "God exists" the next fellow, having any speck of intellectual curiosity will likely ask just what I mean by the word "God". Fact is, if we wish to engage in a worthwhile dialogue about "Green" our efforts will find most reward if, on the outset, we attempt as thorough a description of what "green" means for the purposes of discussion. There is bountiful confused rambling on myspace and 'tis true this type of exchange has it's merit as well.

Genea

Agreed in full. I guess we wait for John to chime in...

John Dishwasher

There will never really be an end game to this idea. It's just an attempt to describe where we all begin, and to put it in language that everyone can agree with. That "it conjures up all sorts of subjective imagery" (which makes it flawed for analysis) is actually why I think it comes close to succeeding. It is vague enough that everyone can identify with it, (can apply their own subjective imagery to it, ) and say: "Yeah, I can roll with that." When you start to get more specific, (which makes it less flawed for analysis), everyone starts to disagree. That's okay. But the essay is really trying to find that place before the disagreements, where there is not yet something to argue about, that place where we all just yearn for peace of mind. Everyone is going to "elaborate this term" a little differently, but everyone feels it. I have intentionally left the "term" "unelaborated" so that it is acceptable to everyone.

You're right to notice I don't have an agenda. I don't really think that this idea can go much further than it already does. It's only intent is to point out what we all have in common.