Better the illusions that exalt us ......

[articulett]

Instead of resenting it... help me understand it...

You said this: For me this is the essence of the OP. We seem to need to have "big ideals" and they are independent of objective truth as often put forward on this board as the highest, indeed the only worthwhile pursuit. It may be I am mischaracterising Blauregen but this is what I understood him to be saying. If it is what he is saying then I agree. We cannot escape the need for such ideals: pretending that we can approach the world purely through objective truth limits us in serious ways.

You implied that some skeptics are "pretending we can approach the world purely through objective means"... and that some skeptics "dissect poems" and ruin their meaning...

Aren't you saying that?

You called "freedom of research" an illusion. It's more an "idea"l than an illusion. It seems you called it an illusion so you could call illusions something worth striving for.... but that doesn't make it an "illusion". It might be elusive... but not an illusion. Why would you call it that? To me, it sounds like a semantics game. But feel free to clarify.

You said you are bothered by reductionism and that blauregen is bothered by it too... and I know he is bothered by something... but you never quote these people that you are bothered by... so I can't tell if it's real or in your head. I understand the responses people give to you... but not your responses or blauregen. You seem to want to be understood, without giving understanding from my limited perspective.

You are mad at me, but I can't even tell what it's based on. The more I try to figure out if it's based on actual words that we can all read and interpret... or a person's own extrapolation of the words, the madder people get. So I'm left to assume it's the latter. I never get quotes that show these skeptics who are too reductionistic and nihilistic and approach the world sole through objective truths... I can't tell what I'm supposed to fix about me or if I'm one of these people, because it's always vague... this vague view of these strident skeptics... but I'm reading the same words... and I don't see it the same way at all.
I don't want to believe that people are seeing things that aren't there, but my attempts at getting clarification are met with attacks on me. When I am asked to clarify, I am more than eager to make sure I'm understood. Why wouldn't someone else do the same? Why wouldn't they clarify what they really meant unless the person zeroed in on what they really meant and they didn't want to admit it?

I don't deny that some people prefer beliefs nor do I care what you believe or don't believe. I want to know if the statement about these skeptics are true... based on anything real... or just a "feeling" or whatever. I want to know if there really is something good about illusions or being deluded... if I should be cowed into silence or speak up or what... but the talk is so nebulous... 10,000 illusions beat 1 truth? To whom? I'd rather be ignorant than deluded. I'd rather not know something than believe a lie. But ideals are NOT illusions. Why would you confuse those two? Is it to pretend that some skeptics don't have ideals? Are you really confused over the difference? Is is it to put the lies of religion on par with ideals of humans?

It ends up sounding to me like you are talking about something that is more true in your head or in some stereotype... I can't see it or understand it. Instead of quoting or clarifying, people get mad or hear intent in me that isn't there. So I just assume that they don't have clarity themselves--that it's just an opinion, but they want it to be fact. And they'd rather be irked with me then to see if the opinion is based on actual words that people used and wrote or a biased interpretatin.

There's all kinds of rude people here.... but all that is opinion... what I want to know is if the OP means anything. If it's just one of those airy platitudes that has personal meaning... or if there is anything to it. I am beginning to suspect it's one of those memes designed to keep the faithful faithful... keep the apologists propping up faith... and keeping the stereotypes of the nihilistic unfeeling uninspired atheist alive. Is it? Or is there anything other than semantics there? Are there a bunch of skeptics here who don't have "ideals" or don't have the depth of "believers in general". Does anything of value come from illusions... other than comforting feelings?

 

[Fiona]

I do not have time to answer this now, Articulett, but I will come back to it this evening or tomorrow. It is a pity you edited, though. Your original post was clearer and nothing you have added moves the question forward.

 

[Lonewulf]

It seems that most people do seek some form of "exaltation". The feeling I get from seeing the rainbow is different from, and unaffected by, any ability to predict where it will appear. ( I can't predict that, btw, but I could perhaps learn to do so). The resonance some poems have for me is killed by studying them: not enhanced. That may only be true for me but it is true for me. This kind of "exaltation" is part of the joy of life and I think without it we are the poorer.

Is the beauty of a rainbow truly lessened by knowing how it forms, or what colors are?

I agree. Unless your backyard elf would affect you or other people unduely negative, I would see no problem with the belief, though.

Of course. But you have no reason to accept my elf claim as true, nor accept any argument with the elf as a premise thereof.

And that is skepticism.

 

[Herzblut]

They get rid of you before 16. Most pedos who like pre-pubescents get rid of their "relationships" the moment they begin to develop breasts and pubic hair. None of my molesters bothered me after age 14.

Of course, the true extent of the damage I suffered didn't really show up until recently, and I'm now 49.

I really hate it when people, especially men, make hypotheticals like these. You frankly sound pretty ignorant to us survivors. And kind of creepy.

Sorry. I meant extremely creepy.

I apologize. I could have chosen a different kind of hypothetical case to examplify my criticism against utilitarian ethics.

Please don't think I am expressing my stance here.

 

[articulett]

I do not have time to answer this now, Articulett, but I will come back to it this evening or tomorrow. It is a pity you edited, though. Your original post was clearer and nothing you have added moves the question forward.

What question?

Which edits?


Ah well... I give up...

I just don't or can't understand some people on some topics... it might be due to something about me... or it might be because they aren't really saying anything... they they are communicating something clear or obvious, but they are not.

If you and blauregen would just make a point... a single point and then back it up with actual quotes then, it would help me and others understand better I think.

 

[nzric]

Can you find a vision, a driving force, a source of exaltation in the skeptic attitude or the scientific approach, that can appeal to not so sophisticated minds like mine, and would therefore offer a replacement?

"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy."

That's all I need.

Why believe in a facade?

 

[Herzblut]

The predominant ideology seems to be humanitarian.

You mean humanistic? You might want to look for utilitarian ethics, expressed in many posts. It's an ethical concept advocated by those 'Brights', have a look at http://forum.brights-deutschland.de/index.php to figure out their perceptions of Menschenwürde. You will hardly like it...

But let me come back to the main topic, exaltation and its religious sources. You mentioned Ghandi, and rightly so. He steeped in lots of religious and philosophical texts to form the Mahatma he converted into. He never accepted any text unreflected, an unthinkable thought of this great man. He selected the ideas crucial for him to guide him further.

He read Thoreau when he was a student, yes, but this was not the key inspiration to turn his attention to nonviolence and to completely re-shape his further life. I mean, read that text. Not bad, not bad. But are the impressions blowing your mind, so poignant and overwhelming?

Not really.

You mentioned 'exaltation' and, yes, that he ignited from The Kingdom of God is Within You, by the great Leo Tolstoy. Ghandi said "Before the... profound morality and the truthfulness of this book, all the books... seemed to pale into insignificance''. This said not a humble student, this said Ghandi.

See:

Gandhi and Tolstoy had much in common. They were no philosophers, but were teachers of humanity and practised what they preached. While Tolstoy is considered a prophet of the latter half of the 19th century, Gandhi belongs to the first half of the 20th century.

Tolstoy manifested independent thinking, profound morality and truthfulness. The ideals of 'resist not evil' and nonviolence struck deep chords with Gandhi. He began to mould his life according to the ideas of Tolstoy. It was not blind following though. He did not share Tolstoy's intense dislike for organized government.

http://www.lifepositive.com/Spirit/masters/mahatma-gandhi/making-mahatma.asp
http://www.mahatmagandhiji.com/bio/mkngomah.htm

Thoreau, yeah, funny read I figure. How he spent one day in jail for not paying tax and so. I can't help but visualize his text as 'The little hobbit' while Tolstoy towers above it with 'Lord of the Rings'.

 

[Lonewulf]

Please don't think I am expressing my stance here.

Nope, but it certainly does seem like the stance you're expressing is one that actually doesn't actually exist... or at the very least, cannot apply to any rational being, as any rational being would see that the sexual molestation you mention is harmful.

 

[Fiona]

Is the beauty of a rainbow truly lessened by knowing how it forms, or what colors are?

Brief visit. The answer to your question is in the part of my post you quoted. I said " The feeling I get from seeing the rainbow is different from, and unaffected by, any ability to predict where it will appear". How can you derive from that that knowledge lessens it? *shakes head*

[/QUOTE]

 

[Herzblut]

You mentioned 'exaltation' and, yes, that he ignited from The Kingdom of God is Within You, by the great Leo Tolstoy. Ghandi said "Before the... profound morality and the truthfulness of this book, all the books... seemed to pale into insignificance''. This said not a humble student, this said Ghandi.

Hey, Tolstoy's Kingdom's all over the Web. So, I picked a passage. Typical for Tolstoy his relentless repudiation of christian and secular authority and his categorical stand by for civil disobediance.

Leo Tolstoy, The Kingdom of God is Within You
And of this kind, without exception, are all the criticisms of educated believers, who must, as such, understand the danger of their position. The sole escape from it for them lies in their hope that they may be able, by using the authority of the Church, of antiquity, and of their sacred office, to overawe the reader and draw him away from the idea of reading the Gospel for himself and thinking out the question in his own mind for himself. And in this they are successful; for, indeed, how could the notion occur to any one that all that has been repeated from century to century with such earnestness and solemnity by all those archdeacons, bishops, archbishops, holy synods, and popes, is all of it a base lie and a calumny foisted upon Christ by them for the sake of keeping safe the money they must have to live luxuriously on the necks of other men? And it is a lie and a calumny so transparent that the only way of keeping it up consists in overawing people by their earnestness, their conscientiousness. It is just what has taken place of late years at recruiting sessions; at a table before the zertzal--the symbol of the Tzars authority--in the seat of honor under the life-size portrait of the Tzar, sit dignified old officials, wearing decorations, conversing freely and easily, writing notes, summoning men before them, and giving orders. Here, wearing a cross on his breast, near them, is prosperous- looking old Priest in a silken cassock, with long gray hair flowing on to his cope; before a lectern who wears the golden cross and has a Gospel bound in gold.
They summon Iran Petroff. A young man comes in, wretchedly, shabbily dressed, and in terror, the muscles of his face working, his eyes bright and restless; and in a broken voice, hardly above a whisper, he says: "I--by Christ's law--as a Christian--I cannot." "What is he muttering?" asks the president, frowning impatiently and raising his eyes from his book to listen. "Speak louder," the colonel with shining epaulets shouts to him. "I--I as a Christian--" And at last it appears that the young man refuses to serve in the army because he is a Christian. "Don't talk nonsense. Stand to be measured. Doctor, may I trouble you to measure him. He is all right?" "Yes." "Reverend father, administer the oath to him."
No one is the least disturbed by what the poor scared young man is muttering. They do not even pay attention to it. "They all mutter something, but we've no time to listen to it, we have to enroll so many."
The recruit tries to say something still. "It's opposed to the law of Christ." "Go along, go along; we know without your help what is opposed to the law and what's not; and you soothe his mind, reverend father, soothe him. Next: Vassily Nikitin." And they lead the trembling youth away. And it does not strike anyone --the guards, or Vassily Nikitin, whom they are bringing in, or any of the spectators of this scene--that these inarticulate words of the young man, at once suppressed by the authorities, contain the truth, and that the loud, solemnly uttered sentences of the calm, self-confident official and the priest are a lie and a deception.

 

[Lonewulf]

Brief visit. The answer to your question is in the part of my post you quoted. I said " The feeling I get from seeing the rainbow is different from, and unaffected by, any ability to predict where it will appear". How can you derive from that that knowledge lessens it? *shakes head*

To be fair, "how" it forms is different than "when" it forms, but okay. I can see that. I think that it's mostly the bolded here, to go to your quote again:

t seems that most people do seek some form of "exaltation". The feeling I get from seeing the rainbow is different from, and unaffected by, any ability to predict where it will appear. ( I can't predict that, btw, but I could perhaps learn to do so). The resonance some poems have for me is killed by studying them: not enhanced.

I suppose I find it hard to see a real difference between the two. Though I can see how it might work out that way. I might, analyzing a joke in detail tends to make it less funny.

 

[Ryan O'Dine]

snip...
I called it a religious principle, because the vector of transmission was religious. I would accept american transcendentalsim as a religious source too, if vedic religions aren't satisfactory, but given that Thoreau was a big fan of vedic scriptures, the distinction seems kind of moot.

A minor point, but transcendentalism was more like rationalism hopped up on poetry than it was like a religion. Its practitioners tended to be huge fans of Eastern imagery and concepts, which were novel to American intellectuals back then. They were not that into the theology -- you certainly couldn't say Thoreau was a Hindu. And I believe Emerson never gave up his Christianity.

Heck, they were fans of the neo-classicism of their time, too. That doesn’t mean they were Zeus worshippers.

He read Thoreau when he was a student, yes, but this was not the key inspiration to turn his attention to nonviolence and to completely re-shape his further life. I mean, read that text. Not bad, not bad. But are the impressions blowing your mind, so poignant and overwhelming?

Not really.

...snip...

Thoreau, yeah, funny read I figure. How he spent one day in jail for not paying tax and so. I can't help but visualize his text as 'The little hobbit' while Tolstoy towers above it with 'Lord of the Rings'.

Thoreau gave him the practical example of what nonviolent resistance could look like. It was no small revelation. Religion gave him the metaphorical language with which to inspire people. Also significant.

There's no reason to downplay Thoreau's contribution in order to play up religion's.

 

[rocketdodger]

For me this is the essence of the OP. We seem to need to have "big ideals" and they are independent of objective truth as often put forward on this board as the highest, indeed the only worthwhile pursuit. It may be I am mischaracterising Blauregen but this is what I understood him to be saying. If it is what he is saying then I agree. We cannot escape the need for such ideals: pretending that we can approach the world purely through objective truth limits us in serious ways.

Your post here illuminates that you do not understand the members of this forum very well at all.

It became quite clear to me, after only a few months, that the reason they are such sticklers for objective truth is because they have "big ideals" and they are wise enough to know that the only way to realize big ideals is through objective truth.

That is what some people completely fail to understand. When you try to realize your dreams with bull**** at best nothing happens and at worst many people die. When you use science, things get done right. Science isn't "just another" tool -- it is the only tool.

I challenge you to find a single instance, just one, where people aspired to something great and were able to meet the goal without relying on science.

 

[rocketdodger]

The utilitarian ethics you describe is incompliant to the ideas of humanism, equal rights and so. It is just indefendable.

Consider the example of a sexual relation between a 9 yrs old girl and her adult pedophile sugar daddy. We might assume the relation lasts for quite some years and it turns out that the girl actually shows no indication of physical or psychological injury by the age of, say, 16, same as other girls in similar relations. The relation then slowly terminates because she's getting too old for her sugar daddy's taste.

Given the fact that the pedophile relation fosters the girl's development, allegely free from suffering, and it also increases happiness, certainly for one person, it aspires towards being regarded as a noble, desirable kind of relationship.

In a utilitarian world, at least.

If such a relationship did not cause harm, then why would it be incompliant with the ideas of humanism, equal rights and so, etc...?

I really can't wait to see how you answer.

 

[Herzblut]

Thoreau gave him the practical example of what nonviolent resistance could look like. It was no small revelation.

Not at all. I admit, my wording gives the opposite impression. Let me correct: Thoreau is really impressive for he shows determined, uncompromising disobedience 'at work'. This must have been highly valuable for Ghandi.

Religion gave him the metaphorical language with which to inspire people. Also significant.

There's no reason to downplay Thoreau's contribution in order to play up religion's.

Right, and this was actually not intended. Tolstoy does not need elevation from where he stands in history.

And honoring Tolstoy can hardly be described as 'to play up religion' since christian establishment has always regarded him as public enemy (and vice versa ).

 

[rocketdodger]

The tangents regarding map<->territory-distinction, human action being based on a map instead of objective reality and that beliefs should be evaluated according to the benefit the believer and her environment derive from them, instead of their actual truthfullness, are parts of my personal set of belief and likely inappropriate for the JREF-Forum.

No, they are not out of place at all. I, and I suspect many others, wholeheartedly agree with you. I am a biological robot, and I have no misconceptions about it -- I make choices, including choices about what I want to accept as reality, based on my benefit and nothing else.

The important difference is that I, and others like me, do not delude ourselves (like so many idiots on this planet) into thinking lies benefit us when they clearly do not. You could say, quite simply, that we have a much more effective bull**** filter.

We know praying does not help food grow -- science does. We know praying does not heal injury -- science does. We know praying does not erect monuments to the God that people pray to -- science does. We know praying does not give us weapons we can use to defeat the infidels -- the science used by the infidels does.

I want to fly. I want to be pyrokinetic, telekinetic, you-name-it-netic. I want to live for millions of years. I want to travel faster than light. I want to feel what it is like to be a woman, a tiger, a dolphin, and even a tree. I want to be able to swim through molten rock and the vacuum of space. Oh, and did I mention that I want my kids to grow up in a safe and happy environment? I have no delusions about these things -- all of these goals are only achievable through science.

 

[ExMinister]

The utilitarian ethics you describe is incompliant to the ideas of humanism, equal rights and so. It is just indefendable.

Consider the example of a sexual relation between a 9 yrs old girl and her adult pedophile sugar daddy. We might assume the relation lasts for quite some years and it turns out that the girl actually shows no indication of physical or psychological injury by the age of, say, 16, same as other girls in similar relations. The relation then slowly terminates because she's getting too old for her sugar daddy's taste.

Given the fact that the pedophile relation fosters the girl's development, allegely free from suffering, and it also increases happiness, certainly for one person, it aspires towards being regarded as a noble, desirable kind of relationship.

In a utilitarian world, at least.

Lonewolf, Robin and Articulett have responded to this much as I would have. What you refer to as utilitarian ethics sounds like a type of relativism to me, something I don't find in the least inspiring (not to mention exalting) and is not what I am describing. To debate whether pedophilia in your hypothetical situation causes suffering is ridiculous - of course, the child suffers.

I brought up Sam Harris' work because it was the first example I personally have come across of a non-religious system of ethics that was simple, rational, and inspirational (to me). My impression is that Blauregen has been questioning whether we need to use words and imagery similar to those the religious leaders use in order to get people excited. Do people crave the exalted feelings associated most often with religion, and if so, if we, operating deliberately outside a religious framework, have something to be excited about (my example of Sam Harris system of ethics being just one), can we present it in a way that creates the same type of reaction in people? I think we can. There have been, and still are, eloquent speakers outside of religion (as someone else pointed out, Carl Sagan was one), and the more, the better. Can people obtain the same type of exalted feelings outside of religion? I think they can, even more so, because in my opinion, armed with critical thinking skills and a working system of ethics, unimpeded by dogma, what could be more exciting than to envision a world where everyone works together to increase the happiness and decrease the suffering of all sentient beings?

 

[articulett]

I think that feelings of human beings may well trump knowledge... but why can't the feelings come from something true and understood? I don't understand this idea that illusions are necessary for feelings of exaltation. It is true... feelings are subjective... but that doesn't make them illusions or derived from illusions. Understanding human feelings and how they evolved or where they come from doesn't make them less poignant. Illusion generated feelings are on par with drug generated feelings to me... or seizure generated feelings. They may feel deep and real and profound to the one experiencing them... but they are relatively common and known brain states.

I'd like to know one illusion that exalts people that is better than the truth. If I was feeling amazed because I thought a psychic or mentalist or magician was amazing... but I didn't realize it was a trick... is that better than knowing it was a trick (even if I didn't know the trick)? Wouldn't I be being amazed at an illusion. I don't want that for me. It's dishonest to me. Some people may well prefer such illusions. And maybe it's wrong to interfere with people who get comfort or "exaltation" via their illusions. But I wouldn't have to if they kept their illusions private--if they didn't post platitudes about illusions being better than truths on a skeptics forum. It, is an opinion, at best... and not one I share. It reminds me of the oft heard phrase... "what does it matter what you believe... as long as it makes you a better person"...

Better to whom? Yourself? You imagine yourself better? You're nicer to others? A better poet? Better in which way?

I used to drink up these phrases like they meant something, but now they just seem silly to me... not deep at all... goofy ways to elevate faith and feelings into "special truths" or "communications with the divine". I think people have learned to think of these sorts of phrases as deep... but when dissected... there is nothing there. Maybe it does ruin them to dissect them... but I have to otherwise I can't see if anything of value is there at all. I can't see if there if anything useful or true or good is being communicated-- or if people are just spinning their own "truths" and good feelings from a bunch of "illusions" that are better than "facts" to them.

I don't like this weird stereotype of these emotionless skeptics who are nihilistic and uninspired and unpoetic. I don't find that true for skeptics as a whole, and when I read their words and hear them speak, they seem like some of the most fabulous examples of humanity I know-- I don't worship them... I just admire what evolution and education has produced... and feel glad to have stumbled upon such people. I don't see the stereotype at all, but some people keep referring to it as though it was a fact... as though it was obvious. Where are the examples. Why am I not seeing it. Aren't the words equally available for us all to read and interpret?

Are people just upset because they don't want to see themselves as promoting a bias or stereotype? Or is there a large cabal of unfeeling, dry, nihilistic, strident atheists saying things that I'm not seeing? Am I one of them? If so, where are the examples; why do I read the same words and miss whatever is being extrapolated by some people? Why do people get mad when I ask for examples of characterizations using their own words. If people seem to believe in this strident militant atheist... it's fair to ask them for specific examples isn't it? Without examples, how can I not assume its' just a stereotype that exists more in the posters imagination than in reality.

I hear this a lot... you'd think that those professing it on a skeptics forum would give examples or admit to not having any. I think Blauregen did as much. But when someone insults "skeptics in general" or "a nebulous cabal of atheists doing strident things"-- then of course I feel defensive. It sounds to me like they are implying things about me and people I care about in a backhanded way to elevate their own opinions of themselves as being diplomatic or something.

 

[Herzblut]

If such a relationship did not cause harm, then why would it be incompliant with the ideas of humanism, equal rights and so, etc...?

I really can't wait to see how you answer.

Let me please chose another kind of relationship, if you don't mind. Namely the one between a male-nurse and a comatose female patient. Her name is Uma. The male-nurse feels in love with her and, hence, nurses her devotedly. His utilitarian mindset tells him that he should maximize happiness always. He happens to chose his happiness, why not? So, he screws her every afternoon. This produces no harm, quite the contrary, he spends even more time nursing her, indulgent body scrubs in particular.

He then decides to spread more happiness still. His old friend hit rock bottom, because his girlfriend left him. Bitch. Well, the good male-nurse, in an attempt to minimize suffering in the world, offers him Uma's wicked body for a good **** from time to time. Not for free, obviously, that goes without saying. The good male-nurse has to look for his own happiness as well, after all.

Uma is still fine, cleanly and creamly, she's a delight! Everybody's happy!

So, why would that be incompliant with the ideas of humanism, equal rights and so, etc...?

And what did Uma do after she woke up?

 

[Roboramma]

You don't answer my question?

Because it's a meaningless question, because it's based on something that's obviously not true. That untrue things lead to false conclusions isn't particularly enlightening.

But okay, I'll answer - if pedophilia didn't lead to harm, I wouldn't have a problem with it. Of course, it does cause harm.

Similarly, if I could steal your car without you losing it, or causing any other harm, I wouldn't think that was wrong either. But we don't live in a world that works that way.

Now, please explain your point.