Beyond The Theism vs. Atheism Debate

[Typist]

Please define what you mean by religion. It's not clear that everyone is talking about the same thing when they use that word.

I don't have a special meaning. Just the usual generic reference to groups that call themselves a religion.

Are you sure?

Yes, I'm sure many (not all) atheists want religion to go away.

Atheists including notably Sam Harris want to retain "spirituality" which may be a euphemism for at least some aspects of religion depending on what you mean by religion.

Yes, I do recall that about him, though I'm fuzzy on the details of his spirituality at this point.

Theists don't agree about what the best goals of religion are or about what religion is.

Yes, of course I agree. I'm just expressing my views.

People shout "O my God" during sex. Religionists use sex as a metaphor for the experience of "knowing" God [See the Son of Solomon in the Hebrew Bible]. Based on such evidence theism is unconsciously closer to sex than atheism.

That's an interesting theory. I really don't know.

Now you're just playing.

Of course. Playing is inherent in any philosophy where the first tenant is, "I don't know".

Religion exists to fulfill humankind's need for ultimate meaning. The atheist's need to feel they know comes from the same place.

Yes, that's clearly part of it. There's probably more to it. Remember, not everyone involved in religion is an ideologue, in fact, that's probably the minority. Religion is more than assertions.

It doesn't matter what you call it. Unless we destroy ourselves, religion will outlive us all.

Could be, it's surely been going on a long time already.

I don't have a goal of ending religion myself. I'm interested in trying to understand the human need that religion is trying to address.

An imperfect example. Hunting.

For most of our history, people hunted because they were physically hungry. Lots of rituals and opinions regarding bravery, skill, technique etc grew up around the activity of hunting. There were even philosophical perspectives about the relationship between hunter and hunted and so on. Hunting was central to many people's lives.

But now that (in the developed world at least) most everybody has ready access to food, hunting is not central to our lives anymore (except perhaps for those who pursue it as a hobby).

The "religion" of hunting was a big deal so long as the need driving interest in hunting existed. Once that need was met by some other method, an interest in hunting that was thousands of years old melted away naturally for most people.

Religion is just a means to an end, an attempt to meet a human need. Whether we like religion or not, it seems any thinking person might want to understand what need generates such a huge response.

[V-OutOfTheWilderness]

Yes, I do recall that about him, though I'm fuzzy on the details of his spirituality at this point.

As I recall Sam fell back to the awareness reading these words.

[felix dakat]

Despite his anti-religious sentiments, Sam Harris also claims that there is "nothing irrational about seeking the states of mind that lie at the core of many religions. Compassion, awe, devotion and feelings of oneness are surely among the most valuable experiences a person can have."

Wikipedia

[Typist]

Despite his anti-religious sentiments, Sam Harris also claims that there is "nothing irrational about seeking the states of mind that lie at the core of many religions. Compassion, awe, devotion and feelings of oneness are surely among the most valuable experiences a person can have."

Thanks for that quick summary of Sam's views, good job, very relevant to this thread. Sam seems on the right track.

Most of the discussion one can find, including most of Sam's writing if I recall correctly, focuses on defending or debunking religion.

What I'm proposing here is that 1) entertainment has been the main accomplishment of such discussions, and 2) because the theism vs. atheism debate is such a well worn path, it's become rather boring, and thus no longer even does a very good job of being entertaining.

So where does that leave us?

1) Many people will continue to pound away within the same old rut, because they've memorized the arguments, and don't wish to discard the ego satisfaction that can come from repeating them.

2) Another group will discard the subject altogether and move on to some other topic.

I propose that these two groups are really more interested in debating than they ever were in the subject of religion. Perhaps they've gotten these two interests confused?

3) A third group will turn away from the highly speculative ideological assertions battle, and towards the more practical mission of "seeking the states of mind that lie at the core of many religions".

For this group, religion is just a tool, a means to a universal human end. This group is practical and rational and says, if one tool doesn't work, don't waste time arguing about it, just put that tool down and pick up another tool.

The reason the theism vs. atheism debate is never resolved is very simple. We don't want to resolve it. The debate goes on for centuries because it is serving the surface level goal of the discussion, conflict for the sake of conflict.

This "conflict for the sake of conflict" endless debate system is itself another attempt to reach for the very human states of mind that are the underlying goal of religions. There's nothing wrong with this "conflict for the sake of conflict" debate system, except that it doesn't work at achieving it's real underlying goals.

Over to you....

[tentative]

Despite his anti-religious sentiments, Sam Harris also claims that there is "nothing irrational about seeking the states of mind that lie at the core of many religions. Compassion, awe, devotion and feelings of oneness are surely among the most valuable experiences a person can have."

Thanks for that quick summary of Sam's views, good job, very relevant to this thread. Sam seems on the right track.

Most of the discussion one can find, including most of Sam's writing if I recall correctly, focuses on defending or debunking religion.

What I'm proposing here is that 1) entertainment has been the main accomplishment of such discussions, and 2) because the theism vs. atheism debate is such a well worn path, it's become rather boring, and thus no longer even does a very good job of being entertaining.

So where does that leave us?

1) Many people will continue to pound away within the same old rut, because they've memorized the arguments, and don't wish to discard the ego satisfaction that can come from repeating them.

2) Another group will discard the subject altogether and move on to some other topic.

I propose that these two groups are really more interested in debating than they ever were in the subject of religion. Perhaps they've gotten these two interests confused?

3) A third group will turn away from the highly speculative ideological assertions battle, and towards the more practical mission of "seeking the states of mind that lie at the core of many religions".

For this group, religion is just a tool, a means to a universal human end. This group is practical and rational and says, if one tool doesn't work, don't waste time arguing about it, just put that tool down and pick up another tool.

The reason the theism vs. atheism debate is never resolved is very simple. We don't want to resolve it. The debate goes on for centuries because it is serving the surface level goal of the discussion, conflict for the sake of conflict.

This "conflict for the sake of conflict" endless debate system is itself another attempt to reach for the very human states of mind that are the underlying goal of religions. There's nothing wrong with this "conflict for the sake of conflict" debate system, except that it doesn't work at achieving it's real underlying goals.

Over to you....

Religion is structured to provide the us - them debate, so theist - atheist, is - isn't, and all the intermitable squabbles are the definition of religion. The core of the religious 'need' isn't religion, but spirtuality, and that is a personal relationship with the universe that can only be shared anecdotally. The problem with this is that spiriuality isn't something to be discussed, but is an on-going experience. Of course, that doesn't keep us from trying to discuss the heart/mind experience with 'failure to communicate' results.

One does not capture a flowing river in a bucket. Yes, it is still water, but it isn't the flowing river...

[Typist]

The core of the religious 'need' isn't religion, but spirtuality, and that is a personal relationship with the universe that can only be shared anecdotally. The problem with this is that spiriuality isn't something to be discussed, but is an on-going experience. Of course, that doesn't keep us from trying to discuss the heart/mind experience with 'failure to communicate' results.

Right. You can't transfer your experience to my mind, and vice versa. The experience of reality isn't abstract information, and thus can not be transferred via language. We can transfer facts ABOUT reality, but not experience of reality.

We can discuss how we came to have whatever experience we had, are having etc.

One does not capture a flowing river in a bucket. Yes, it is still water, but it isn't the flowing river...

Nice expression!

[V-OutOfTheWilderness]

Beyond The Theism vs. Atheism debate? How do we do that, or go there?

The battle between the atheists and theists is greatly imbalanced. Not only do theists way out number atheists, but they are fighting for God, and against God's enemies, the atheists. Theists will never give up fighting for their creator. If they do they won't be theists any longer.

So we're never gonna get past this battle. The theists fight for God -- they are following God's commandments -- and the atheists don't have a god to defend, but are speaking out for humanity.

To the atheists "God is not great." To them "organised religion is "violent, irrational, intolerant, allied to racism, tribalism, and bigotry, invested in ignorance and hostile to free inquiry, contemptuous of women and coercive toward children" and sectarian, and that accordingly it "ought to have a great deal on its conscience.""

So the battle will continue ... there's lots on the line for both sides. In short, the theists -- religionists -- are more dangerous to society than atheists. As we see in the middle east.

[Typist]

Thanks for playing.

Beyond The Theism vs. Atheism debate? How do we do that, or go there?

Perhaps we might instead start with the question, do we want to go there? If not, then we don't need to worry about how. Efficient!

The battle between the atheists and theists is greatly imbalanced. Not only do theists way out number atheists, but they are fighting for God, and against God's enemies, the atheists. Theists will never give up fighting for their creator. If they do they won't be theists any longer.

To which we have the option of saying, who cares? If somebody is determined to go round and round in the same circles, that's their choice. Do we want to make this choice for ourselves?

So we're never gonna get past this battle.

I propose we get past it on the day we decide we want to be past it. Not "them", not "those people over there", not some group, but each of us as individuals. If we want to join the fight, we can join the fight. If we want to do something else, we can do something else.

The theists fight for God -- they are following God's commandments -- and the atheists don't have a god to defend, but are speaking out for humanity.

Both sides claim to be speaking out for humanity. It's probably closer to the truth to say that theists are speaking out for theism, atheists are speaking out for atheism, and neither side really cares that much about solutions, unless it's their solution.

To the atheists "God is not great." To them "organised religion is "violent, irrational, intolerant, allied to racism, tribalism, and bigotry, invested in ignorance and hostile to free inquiry, contemptuous of women and coercive toward children" and sectarian, and that accordingly it "ought to have a great deal on its conscience.""

To which I usually reply, way way way more people have been slaughtered by atheists in the last century than by theists. Atheism is as flooded with fantasy as theism. People on each side have their self flattering stories which they repeat over and over blindly without regard to easily observable well documented historical facts.

There's a simple reason for this. Those in the middle of the fight aren't interested in serving humanity, but in winning an argument, that is, serving themselves.

So the battle will continue ... there's lots on the line for both sides. In short, the theists -- religionists -- are more dangerous to society than atheists. As we see in the middle east.

The most dangerous people on the planet are those who control nuclear weapons, and most of them are atheists, or non-ideological theists. Apologies, but you've been drinking too much of the atheist koolaid.

[Bob]

To refine my request, I'm not suggesting we drop all debate, but perhaps take a break from what seems to be pointless debate, like the question of a God's existence etc. Just in one thread, to provide what might be a refreshing alternative to the usual routine.

I would like to suggest that the planet provides or has provided everything that human life requires to become the sentient representatives of life of the planet. I would further suggest that the furthering of this sentience and the advancement of understanding how life came about and how it can be sustained could be a religious goal which could lead us all to enlightenment.

Would that be beyond the theism vs atheism debate?

[V-OutOfTheWilderness]

The most dangerous people on the planet are those who control nuclear weapons, and most of them are atheists, or non-ideological theists. Apologies, but you've been drinking too much of the atheist koolaid.

Well thank God the most Christian nation in the world doesn't have nukes, never used them, and the atheists dropped the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

[Uccisore]

I haven't been studying the matter long enough to suppose I've seen the limits of the debate, and I am perpetually amazed by all the people (who by all accounts know nothing at all about philosophy of religion) that think they have.
I'll put forward that the idea of "These problems are too complicated to solve" or "people on both sides have argued the matter to a standstill" has merely become a popular thing to say in an generation that has taken a firm stand against taking firm stands, and as such, people will say these things without the experience to back it up.

[Typist]

Hi Bob, thanks for joining.

I would like to suggest that the planet provides or has provided everything that human life requires to become the sentient representatives of life of the planet.

Sounds ok to me. My only quibble might be to suggest we not get overly enthusiastic about putting ourselves at the center of the story. We're here, we're interesting, statements true of every species on the planet.

I would further suggest that the furthering of this sentience...

Could you explain further what you mean by "sentience"? Perhaps I'm not as familiar with that word as I should be.

...and the advancement of understanding how life came about and how it can be sustained could be a religious goal which could lead us all to enlightenment.

I'm ok with this generally speaking. To quibble, perhaps we could replace "religious goals" with "human goals", and "enlightenment" with a more neutral word such as "fulfillment".

Would that be beyond the theism vs atheism debate?

Sure. We're here, that's an agreed upon fact. We have various needs, an agreed upon fact. We could do a better job of meeting those needs, there's plenty of work that remains to be done, we can probably all agree on this.

If we were to succeed in meeting all our needs by some method or another, we might reason that theism, atheism and other speculative inquiries about things we don't seem capable of knowing, would no longer be that interesting to us.

[tentative]

To refine my request, I'm not suggesting we drop all debate, but perhaps take a break from what seems to be pointless debate, like the question of a God's existence etc. Just in one thread, to provide what might be a refreshing alternative to the usual routine.

I would like to suggest that the planet provides or has provided everything that human life requires to become the sentient representatives of life of the planet. I would further suggest that the furthering of this sentience and the advancement of understanding how life came about and how it can be sustained could be a religious goal which could lead us all to enlightenment.

Would that be beyond the theism vs atheism debate?

Nope. If it became a 'religious' goal, then we're back in the same old paradigm. Unless I miss my guess, Typist is asking if there is any opportunity to find a new paradigm, not just re-arrange the old furniture in the same old house. I haven't thought this through, but could such a new paradigm become a call to that which is sacred? Sentience has given humanity enormous power of heart/mind. With that power comes enormous responsibility. Could the questions become one of stewardship? Do we have any responsibility to all of life on the planet? Are we our brothers keeper? Doesn't our awareness of awareness generate the sense of awe and wonder that we might call a vision of that which is sacred?

It seems to me that in such a pardigm, one could discuss the whats, the whys, the hows of stewardship which would be honoring our spiritual sensitivities. Whether it is to honor and acknowledge a God creator or to create meaning in an indifferent universe could be left to the individual (since it already is) and our discussion and actions would transcend the pettiness and divisiveness of religion.

[Typist]

Nope. If it became a 'religious' goal, then we're back in the same old paradigm.

How about this? We might greatly simplify and state the bottom line goal of religion is to make people feel good. We can work at this same goal, without the necessity of labeling it as either religious or secular. How about calling it a human goal? Everybody wants to feel good, right?

Unless I miss my guess, Typist is asking if there is any opportunity to find a new paradigm, not just re-arrange the old furniture in the same old house.

Ok, that can work.

Let's label the old paradigm as "knowing". The theist claims to know one thing, and the atheist claims to know something else. They position themselves as polar opposites, but really they are both what we might call "Knowists". That is, people who assume knowing is what the enterprise is all about, and they claim to be knowers. "Knowists" use philosophies of various flavors to develop their knowings.

A different paradigm might be labeled Ignorance, which might be explored through a discipline we could call "aphilosophy". Here's how that could work....

First we use the philosophy of the old knowist paradigm to discover that when it comes to infinite scale type questions, the reality is that we don't really know anything. As philosophers, we want to work with facts as much as we can, and the fact here seems to be that we are ignorant, with seemingly no immediate possibility to change that fact.

If we should conclude by careful reasoning that....

1) We don't currently know, and have no pending prospect of knowing...

2) And, we are still interested in continuing the inquiry...

It follows that....

3) We have to proceed with what we do have, ignorance.

The "Knowists" seek to defeat ignorance, to push it away. But after thousands of years of trying, they can provide no evidence that they are capable of such a thing, in regards to infinite scale type questions. Thus, their insistence on continuing to do the same thing over and over, while expecting different results, is seen as irrational.

In an alternative paradigm, rational is defined as seeing reality as clearly as possible, facing the facts, and making the best possible use of whatever resources we actually have available.

If one was wandering the tundra and saw millions of trees, one would make a house out of wood, because wood is what is readily available.

The building material we have in abundance is ignorance. An alternate paradigm might recognize this obvious reality, stop fighting the facts, and try to make good use of a very available natural resource.

[tentative]

Well we might not be on the exact same path, but we're going the same direction. I still think that there needs to be an emphasis that this is about satisfying our need to express our spirituality whether with a god or not. I don't think we could get very far without addressing that need first and foremost. Otherwise, we'd revert to 'religion' and I think that trying to drag all the baggage that religion brings, would spell failure. Given that what we're talking about goes beyond language is it's own problem, and I'm hesitant to suggest I know a way around that beyond personal experience (and we know what anecdotal info is worth).

[Pandora]

My interest in religion is from psychological point of view. Theists' strongest argument so far is the argument by 'faith'.
It is effectively an establishment of 'no trespass zone' for rational mind. It's like person goes into a fenced garden and shuts the gate behind them, so all you can do is stand on the other side and try to figure out why they went inside.
The other strong argument is the 'personal experience' argument. I've talked to many people who are personally convinced of God's existence because of something (miraculous and illogical) that happened in their lives, such as one's own son who suddenly came back to life after being declared clinically dead, and the such. The trend is that many people become convinced of God from experiencing events that the rational mind would label as extreme and illogical, in other words, the rational mind could not explain away.

[tentative]

My interest in religion is from psychological point of view. Theists' strongest argument so far is the argument by 'faith'.
It is effectively an establishment of 'no trespass zone' for rational mind. It's like person goes into a fenced garden and shuts the gate behind them, so all you can do is stand on the other side and try to figure out why they went inside.
The other strong argument is the 'personal experience' argument. I've talked to many people who are personally convinced of God's existence because of something (miraculous and illogical) that happened in their lives, such as one's own son who suddenly came back to life after being declared clinically dead, and the such. The trend is that many people become convinced of God from experiencing events that the rational mind would label as extreme and illogical, in other words, the rational mind could not explain away.

Something to consider: Belief in a god is rational. Much of existence is causal, or at least appears to be causal. The rational mind will attempt to assign cause/agency to experience, and bingo, there is a rational argument for a god(s). The beauty of this rational creation is that it places agency outside human knowledge, and is therefore, untouchable. The fall back position is that "god moves in mysterious ways" or, the more simple explanation of everything is "god did it". It covers all the bases, doesn't it? It makes it possible for me to know what I don't know and I never have to plead ignorance. I ALWAYS know, because god did it. Pressed in honest argumentation, the reliance on the faith argument always works when confronted with the unexplainable.

That's why it is necessary to ignore the is-isn't argumentation and leave that to individual experience. How shall we live? is the paradigm that takes us past religion and the fracteous niggling arguments. We don't ignore our spiritual nature but fold it into our reverence for what is life and how best to express that awe and reverence.

[Typist]

Well we might not be on the exact same path, but we're going the same direction.

Being on the exact same path would be a boring path.

I still think that there needs to be an emphasis that this is about satisfying our need to express our spirituality whether with a god or not.

I'm sorry, I got so wound up in my own sermon I kind of missed your definition of spirituality. Is this it?

It seems to me that in such a pardigm, one could discuss the whats, the whys, the hows of stewardship which would be honoring our spiritual sensitivities. Whether it is to honor and acknowledge a God creator or to create meaning in an indifferent universe could be left to the individual (since it already is) and our discussion and actions would transcend the pettiness and divisiveness of religion.

Given that what we're talking about goes beyond language is it's own problem,

This statement tells me our interests are close enough to create an interesting dialogue. The challenge I see, the problem you are perhaps referring to, is discussing what may be unfamiliar ideas in straightforward common sense every day language, so that our discussion might be interesting and useful to the widest audience. Hmm, not so easy....

How about physical reality as a place to start? Highly imperfect analogy to follow....

Let's try astronomy. Astronomy tends to focus on things in space, planets, stars, galaxies etc. Theism and atheism might be compared to astronomy, an attempt to gather data about things, to come to conclusions, to make the unknown known.

It's interesting to observe that the overwhelming vast majority of physical reality, both within the universe and within every object, is actually empty space. Well, relatively empty of course.

If our investigation is always focused on things in space, we are ignoring most of reality, space itself. If our investigation is always focused on something, we're missing the biggest thing there is, nothing. If our investigation is always focused on what we know or think we know, we're missing the fundamental reality of our situation as human beings, our unimaginably vast ignorance.

If we are followers of reason, it demands we focus clear minded observations on reality, and most of reality is space, nothing, ignorance.

One way to say this might be that the paradigm shift is a shift from a focus on things, to the space that surrounds and defines the things. A shift of focus from exploring and developing the known, to an exploration of the unknown.

Not exploring the unknown in order to transform it in to the known. That's the standard paradigm, the theism/atheism enterprise.

Exploring space, the unknown, for itself. That's the alternate paradigm.

Seen this way, our ignorance is transformed from a weakness in to an asset.

...and I'm hesitant to suggest I know a way around that beyond personal experience (and we know what anecdotal info is worth).

As I see it, we are using philosophy to explore up to the boundaries of the realm philosophy can explore. Philosophy can be helpful in identifying the boundaries of it's own realm. Philosophy, a tool designed to make things known, seems less useful in exploring the unknown for itself.

I dunno. This is way too much fancy talk, but maybe you guys can help me out here. Struggling....

[Typist]

My interest in religion is from psychological point of view.

Me too. That's something we can do something about.

Theists' strongest argument so far is the argument by 'faith'. It is effectively an establishment of 'no trespass zone' for rational mind.

I love it, what a great phrase! Well done...

I think what often happens is that the type of person who becomes an atheist typically has a well developed rational mind, which then becomes their prison.

That is, because they are by nature good at rational thought, they make rational thought in to a god of sorts, and can't imagine anything outside of this comfortable reality that they've created for themselves. Thus, they hate the no trespass zone, because it doesn't include them, or so they think.

I'm this way myself. I continually expect that human beings will think and act rationally, because if this was true, this would create a world that I personally would be comfortable in, because I'm a compulsive logic nerd by nature. Even after 60 years, I'm still continually surprised when this expectation of mine proves to be false. Same mistake, over and over and over and over again. It's an entirely stupid routine, which gets ever more embarrassing with each passing year. I keep wondering when I'll finally grow up. It'd better be pretty soon!

Of course this expectation of mine is not at all rational, as it is in direct conflict with a huge pile of evidence piled up around my ears, including my own irrational expectation and behavior.

I have met the enemy, and he is me.

Oops....

[tentative]

I dunno. This is way too much fancy talk, but maybe you guys can help me out here. Struggling....

I think you're bumping your nose into what a couple of us have always recognized as the 'ineffable' (thanks, Bob). We do just fine until we open our mouths. It is good that you understand not only the level of our ignorance, but the impact of that as well. The problem is always the same. We speak and write in language. We think in language. For all it's usefulness, language creates a rigid structure that 'channels' all our thoughts and what we may speak or write. How does one communicate the expressions of heart/mind except through metaphor? Any 'talk' of reality is never more than approximation. Close, but no banana.

Still, one must go forward with the assumption that we are sane and can grasp reality even though it is through 'the looking glass darkly'. I've been puzzling this the last few days trying to come up with an explanation that doesn't fall apart in a few seconds. Giant fail. I've not found any method of inquiry that satisfies a complete explanation. There is always something 'left out'. From my pragmatic side, I tend to shrug and get on with the dailies. I suspect that every method of inquiry contains useful truths, and perhaps the real issue is to not let any knowing become concretized. Perhaps it is that emphasis that is missed in so much of our communication (or mis-communication). Perhaps what we need is to simply become sensitized to our ignorance, to look into the night sky and experience the awe and reverence of our insignificance in the universe or more importantly, the insignificance of our little egos in our private and personal world. If enough people could appreciate that then our conduct in the world would change considerably.

I don't think I'll hold my breath waiting... But for a few, perhaps the theist - atheist arguments fade away. Sounds good, doesn't it? But as usual, I'm left with no answers in my rambling babble...

[V-OutOfTheWilderness]

That's why it is necessary to ignore the is-isn't argumentation and leave that to individual experience. How shall we live? is the paradigm that takes us past religion and the fracteous niggling arguments. We don't ignore our spiritual nature but fold it into our reverence for what is life and how best to express that awe and reverence.

I bought a DVD on "The Trail of Tears," with additional presentation on Native American ways of life.

I was impressed with how much comfort and solace the Indians got from The Great Spirit. They not only sent up prayers to the great spirit thru the smoke of their peace pipe, but called in the healing powers of the great spirit for illnesses.

In short the great spirit really enhanced their way of life.

Is this what you mean, tentative, when you say : "We don't ignore our spiritual nature but fold it into our reverence for what is life and how best to express that awe and reverence?"

[Typist]

I think you're bumping your nose into what a couple of us have always recognized as the 'ineffable'

Yes, I'm quite the nose bumper. Usually I'm bumping noses not with the ineffable, but with other people's noses though. Oh well...

We do just fine until we open our mouths.

I know, I know, but it's just so much fun to make noise. Oink, oink, honk, HONK!!!

It is good that you understand not only the level of our ignorance, but the impact of that as well.

Could I be the most arrogant ignorant person, is that position still open?

The problem is always the same. We speak and write in language. We think in language.

Right, right, right. And the word is not the thing.

For all it's usefulness, language creates a rigid structure that 'channels' all our thoughts and what we may speak or write.

Language creates an alternate reality which does not accurately represent the larger reality it attempts to reflect. As example...

In thought and language, the word "tree" creates a very neat and tidy dividing line between "tree" and "not tree". This is a useful device but, in the real world there is no such dividing line.

How does one communicate the expressions of heart/mind except through metaphor? Any 'talk' of reality is never more than approximation. Close, but no banana.

Truthfully, I think what really interests me most is this translation process. It's really just a minor technical matter, for me personally. None of my observations are original, so the contribution I hope to make is a translation out of the usual obscure high sounding fancy talk in to simple every day language. It's not easy, and I basically suck at it, but that's what interests me. My screen name is "Typist" for a reason, I like to type. Mostly about myself.

Still, one must go forward with the assumption that we are sane and can grasp reality even though it is through 'the looking glass darkly'.

It's something to do while the clock ticks and we proceed along our journey from nothing to back to nothing.

I've been puzzling this the last few days trying to come up with an explanation that doesn't fall apart in a few seconds. Giant fail. I've not found any method of inquiry that satisfies a complete explanation.

This is where typing for the joy of typing comes in, for me anyway. The one thing I know for sure is that it's fun to hear the computer keyboard keys go clickety clack, clickety clack, clickety clack.

I suspect that every method of inquiry contains useful truths, and perhaps the real issue is to not let any knowing become concretized.

Sounds good to me, avoid reaching a destination, enjoy the journey for itself as they say.

Perhaps what we need is to simply become sensitized to our ignorance, to look into the night sky and experience the awe and reverence of our insignificance in the universe or more importantly, the insignificance of our little egos in our private and personal world. If enough people could appreciate that then our conduct in the world would change considerably.

Yes! Our smallness, our ignorance, our insignificance, our inability etc. The unknown and the unknowable. A valuable asset, not a problem!

To try to say it in theist language...

We ask God for an answer, and we hear back nothing. We're disappointed but... Nothing is the answer to our question!!! Every time we ask we are answered, but we refuse to listen to the answer. Again, I'm just attempting to translate in to theist-talk.

We could also observe reality very closely and objectively like a good scientist, and arrive at the same place, and explain it with different talk.

I don't think I'll hold my breath waiting... But for a few, perhaps the theist - atheist arguments fade away. Sounds good, doesn't it? But as usual, I'm left with no answers in my rambling babble...

Clickety clack, clickety clack, clickety clack, oink, honk etc. And now the dancing bears will juggle the three naked trapeze artists on the high wire while the elephants pull down the tent and the show goes on.

[felix dakat]

I haven't been studying the matter long enough to suppose I've seen the limits of the debate, and I am perpetually amazed by all the people (who by all accounts know nothing at all about philosophy of religion) that think they have.
I'll put forward that the idea of "These problems are too complicated to solve" or "people on both sides have argued the matter to a standstill" has merely become a popular thing to say in an generation that has taken a firm stand against taking firm stands, and as such, people will say these things without the experience to back it up.

I doubt that I have studied the matter as deeply as you have, but I can say that I haven't seen the limits of the debate either and still find the subject interesting enough to be drawn into it. I don't think Typist is proposing complete rejection of that debate altogether, but rather is suggesting this thread as an alternative for respite.

[Typist]

I don't think Typist is proposing complete rejection of that debate altogether, but rather is suggesting this thread as an alternative for respite.

One way to put it might be...

If one follows either reason or faith through to their natural conclusion, one might wind up in a thread like this.

We can look at it from the faith side, just as we have from the reason side.

If one has sufficient faith in an all powerful loving god, one has no need for any other authority. Surely an all powerful God is authority enough! Bibles, preachers, popes, ideologies and the infrastructure of religion, all of that, unnecessary. An all powerful loving God can talk to us any time it wants, in whatever way it feels is best. Why should a person of sufficient faith listen to self appointed human experts when they can listen to God instead??? Religion is for people who wish they had faith.

If one has sufficient faith in an all powerful loving god, one really has no need for one's own opinions on religious matters either. What would be the point? Is the Holy Ghost higher or lower than Jesus? Was Jesus reborn and are we saved? Is Krishna bigger than Vishnu?

Who cares, to the person of sufficient faith God is taking care of all of that, and there's no way we could possibly keep up with the who, what, where, when and why of it. Surely an all powerful God can manage reality without need of our opinions and advice. The person of sufficient faith would see that, and let the opinions go.

So, we might propose that faith and reason will eventually lead to the same place, if taken far enough.

The natural world of the reasonist or the God of the faithful, whatever we want to call it...

Is inconceivably huge, and we are unimaginably small.

And then the practical person of either faith or reason may ask, ok, what can I do with what I've found?

[V-OutOfTheWilderness]

And then the practical person of either faith or reason may ask, ok, what can I do with what I've found?

Well you could do this :
http://www.newser.com/story/147017/serpent-pastor-dies-of-snake-bite.html