For the past little while I've been really thinking about this and wanted to share it with my RfM peeps:

As a human being I think the most important goal in my life has been to figure out exactly what the hell is going on here (as in life, the universe, and everything).

As humans we have evolved to a point where we have a general sense of scale, right? We're tinkering with fermions and bosons and studying galaxies all at the same time.

We move bits and pieces of the planet around and mix stuff together to make life more convenient for ourselves.

We've more than doubled the human life span in just a few hundred years.

And yet, if we're to be very honest with ourselves (a rare feat), we've come to relatively few conclusions about what exactly the hell is going on around us.

That's equal parts disturbing and exciting.

There's so much left to discover!

So when I hear about people who jump from religion to religion like the post about being a christian with a little c I can't help but think how stupid that is.

Joining a religion is basically throwing your hands up in the air and declaring "I DON'T WANT TO THINK ABOUT THIS ANYMORE! NAH NAH NAH NAH I CAN'T HEAR YOU!"

These folks are forfeiting their ability to be pioneers in the land of discovery and instead they're trading their time & money for absolute bullshit.

What do you get from a religion? Bronze-age superstitions that don't help anyone. It's like pulling the sheet up over your head because you're afraid of monsters in the closet or under your bed.

Guess what? A sheet isn't going to stop a monster. It's a childish impulse and I humbly suggest you get over it.

If you MUST adhere to a religion, I mean if you absolutely HAVE TO... why not start your own?

Nobody is smarter than you. You are the cutting edge.

Religions are thought-retarding institutions.

Stop hiding under the sheets. Let's fight the monsters together!

</endrant>

It actually made me laugh out loud. So true. So true.
Religions as thought-retarding institutions.

Religious liberties legislation is on the docket in the courts.

With all there is to discover in this world, we are still fighting religious liberty rights of 'bronze age superstitions'.

And now it has become a civil right for anything from posting clothing requirements for shopping at a store because of religious belief, to the funding of abortions and the right to marry.

Makes me wonder if anybody really knows, "exactly what the hell is going on" too.

From the current political administration, judicial judges, and religious leaders, to the uninformed public and media editorials, the disparity between common sense, integrity, and discovery, and the beliefs of superstitous, fearful, and brain bondaged people makes a thinking person simply shake their head in bewilderment.

Makes me wonder if the human race is evolving. And into what? Great post.

Always been the case.
"Eppur si muove" (yet it moves)

- Galileo Galilei
Upon being forced to recant the heliocentric solar system

kolobian Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Guess what? A sheet isn't going to stop a monster.
> It's a childish impulse and I humbly suggest you
> get over it.

Humbly? It doesn't sound so.

I don't think being religious is so childish. I don't believe in any organization of religion but God help me if I wanted to become more myopic in my delusion to create my own.

Sometimes a sense of wonder, mystery, and awe at existence expresses itself religiously. Even people who let others determine their basic core beliefs aren't children. They might be not that interested in forming their own beliefs but this can be said of lots of things.

I probably shouldn't have replied but I see these cyclically here and wonder why "get over it" is such a thing for some exMormons.

Allowing other people to think for you and make decisions for you is precisely what children do until they are able to think critically on their own and make their own decisions.

So yes, I think religion is childish.

I disagree that a sense of wonder, mystery, and awe expresses itself religiously. I think religions try to box in and package that natural sense of wonder and re-sell it to people to further their own political agendas.

Also, people who let others determine their core beliefs are definitely children.

I'm glad you replied, but I'm curious why someone posting on a "recovery" website would be curious why so many people are interested in getting over things. LOL!

I'll be damned if I don't think you're both right.

I guess you've graduated from RfM. Congrats.

Nope, quite the opposite. I'm so engaged in getting over mormonism that I frequent this site as often as I can. I want to get over it, so I come here for support, encouragement, and information. :)

I like floating, and I like being still while floating.

You once asked me, "Why do you work so hard to be still? You are already enlightened!"

Agree!

But knowing, and being, are two different things. After we know, there is more divinity to realize. Here's a link to a vid by a master discussing this topic:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fuE-ZzLaTT0

wub wub wub

Since leaving tscc I've had a severe case of "whothehellcares-ism."

I agree with the OP that nobody has an effing clue how we got here and what our purpose is (if there is one).

Where I disagree is that we ought to, or can, or should, or whatever figure it all out. Maybe that's a defeatist attitude to have, but I figure if billions and billions of people who've ever lived on this earth can't figure it out, and I wouldn't even begin to know how to invent electricity which seems like child's play compared to "figuring it all out" then yeah, that realization tends to make me think it'd be a complete and utter waste of my time to even try. The search wouldn't be enjoyable because it'd lead to a bunch of dead ends, the result would likely be just more unanswered questions and endless confusion.

The thought of putting an ounce of time into trying to find meaning in all of this just makes me extremely depressed, honestly.

I'd much rather enjoy the things that I can see, feel, hear, touch, smell, share, and experience. Those things are what's real, definite, and fulfilling to me.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/23/2014 09:34PM by exldsdudeinslc.

Yeah, I don't disagree that figuring it all out isn't for everyone. But the good news is that someone already figured out electricity. If you hit a bunch of dead ends and document them that will keep our children from hitting the same dead ends so they can spend their time on other things. That's how progress is made.

But when you say you'd rather enjoy the things you can see, hear, feel, hear, touch, smell, share and experience... I can't argue with you there. Somebody has to enjoy it all!! :)

Well, that's true for most fundamentalist religions; it's a bit like the army: you don't have to worry about what to wear, when to eat, when to get up--the DI will make sure you follow the rules. However, the military is not supposed to explore and answer universal questions and foster deeper understanding: it's supposed to break stuff and kill people and prevent the "other guys" from breaking your stuff and killing you. The good news is that it forces you to learn discipline if you need to learn it.

There are many Jewish and Catholic scholars that dig deep into philosophy and "why are we here?" questions that are very intellectual---I assume Buddhists, Muslims and many others as well. But TSCC (among others) plays the game that makes you THINK you're getting inside info on universal truths, but at the same time tells you not to think because the "thinking's been done." The good news is that it forces you to learn discipline if you need to learn it.


I always tell the story of the young woman who became a muslim and said it made her feel so "free", then went on to describe how she doesn't have to worry about what to wear, when and how to pray. The good news is that it forces you to learn discipline if you need to learn it.


Free?!?!

And that's the trick with any cult: promise you exclusive esoteric truth that makes you a better person (and by extension, "better" and "smarter" than everyone else), but then control you and tell you not to think too much and make you a puppet for the "prophet"...

The good news is that it forces you to learn discipline if you need to learn it.

But do you need it that much?

the shoe or the gourd ?

The gourd, follow the holy gourd (everyone knows that by now.)

"As a human being I think the most important goal in my life has been to figure out exactly what the hell is going on here (as in life, the universe, and everything)."

COMMENT: One of the reasons I respond to your posts is that I sense that you are as obsessed with "figuring it out" as I am, regardless of the obstacles. I hope these comments are helpful to you.

"As humans we have evolved to a point where we have a general sense of scale, right? We're tinkering with fermions and bosons and studying galaxies all at the same time."

COMMENT: Well, a sense of scale, maybe. But a comprehension of the relevant levels of reality, No. We have to constantly keep in mind that as humans our assessment of scale is limited, and obviously so. Although we have discovered subatomic particles and have sophisticated ways to measure them, we still have no clue as to what lies at bottom; i.e. what is fundamental in the "physical" world. Similarly, on cosmic scales we are left pondering the possibility of a multiverse, with no scientific experimental vehicle to assess our theories. Moreover, "scale" applies only to what we know about the physical world. What scales might exist (levels) as to a possible reality that we do not have any access to? These scale limitations will forever make our assessments of ultimate reality solely theoretic and speculative.

"And yet, if we're to be very honest with ourselves (a rare feat), we've come to relatively few conclusions about what exactly the hell is going on around us."

COMMENT: Yes. Absolutely agree.

"So when I hear about people who jump from religion to religion like the post about being a christian with a little c I can't help but think how stupid that is."

COMMENT: I think you are too hasty with the word "stupid." Although is shows lack of religious stability, and perhaps commitment, it may reflect a person response to the very uncertainties that you acknowledge. What you have to show is that turning to religion is per se stupid as a response to metaphysical uncertainty. That is very hard to do non-rhetorically.

"Joining a religion is basically throwing your hands up in the air and declaring "I DON'T WANT TO THINK ABOUT THIS ANYMORE! NAH NAH NAH NAH I CAN'T HEAR YOU!"

COMMENT: Again, joining a religion has nothing necessarily to do with giving up on intellectual or scientific pathways to truth. It may just be a tentative response to scientific limitations and uncertainty, since science cannot answer the ultimate questions that religion addresses. Of course, this is not to dismiss the negatives of specific religious dogma. But that is separate and apart from the turning to religion itself. Moreover, religion certainly can be receptive to scientific inquiry, and many religious views are in part based upon scientific considerations.

"These folks are forfeiting their ability to be pioneers in the land of discovery and instead they're trading their time & money for absolute bullshit."

COMMENT: The polemics here ("bullshit") betray more a bias and perhaps frustration than legitimate criticism. You forget that a great, great many of the "pioneers" in science were religious, and some deeply so. I could give you a list, but the point is that being religious has nothing to do with one's interest in pursuing science, or seeking intellectual enlightenment.

"What do you get from a religion? Bronze-age superstitions that don't help anyone. It's like pulling the sheet up over your head because you're afraid of monsters in the closet or under your bed."

COMMENT: This is ludicrous. A given religion, or religious belief, may indeed be "stupid" is some of its particulars, but there are religious views--admittedly few and far between--that are well-articulated and argued by competent scholars. So, to suggest that religion per se entails fear is itself, well, stupid.

"Religions are thought-retarding institutions."

COMMENT: Yes, they can be. They can create illegitimate filters that undermine scientific progress and enlightenment. But both religions themselves, as well as the specific commitments to their established dogmas, very considerably. Mormonism does not allow much deviation from dogma, but other religions are quite flexible in allowing nuanced variation and thought within a general religious context.

I sense from my reading of your posts--and that of many others on this Board--that you are not well-read on theistic arguments, perhaps relying solely on the "new-atheist" literature. I suggest as a starting point you read Anthony Flew's book, "There is a God" which provides a very good apologist overview of the topic from a philosophical and scientific perspective. Note: Obviously, I do not endorse all of the conclusions of this book. (Unfortunately, it is impossible to find a fair non-apologetic treatment of this subject. Remember, the writings of Dawkins, Dennett, Harris, Hitchens, Stenger, etc. are apologetics on stilts.)

If you wrote a book on any (or all) of these subjects I'd be happy to read it :)

"but the point is that being religious has nothing to do with one's interest in pursuing science, or seeking intellectual enlightenment."

Maybe nothing to do with one's interest, but here's an interesting take from Neil deGrasse Tyson.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ti3mtDC2fQo

Nitpicky heads-up:


kolobian Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> We've more than doubled the human life span in
> just a few hundred years.


This is not true. Like the belief that once there was a world where everyone thought the earth flat, this one about everyone dropping dead at 40 is false.

Many Grecians, Romans and medieval Europeans lived for about as long as we do until our first grave illness (65 or so) and many even longer. I could catalogue a list of names later if you wish. The problem arises by mixing up life span and life expectancy. The number 40 is a rough guess for an average life expectancy based on a guess about infant mortality, which was very high. But if you made it past two you were likely to live well past 40.

On the flat earth meme:

http://www.edge.org/conversation/thalers-question#csimonyi

It is true, however, that we've grown much taller. Is that progress?



One other thing, quickly: Knowing about fermions, bosons and galaxies far far away won't stop a monster any more than a sheet will; however, a 'religious sheet' provides meaning thus rendering a monster endurable. Does more and more knowledge provide meaning? Maybe for some, but certainly not for most. My take is that meaning is for more important to human functioning and flourishing than is anything like a 'precept upon precept' gathering of more and more facts.

Cheers buddy.

Well shoot. That's what I get for being a parrot. I admit I was never really skeptical of the doubling-life span meme. I'll have to look into it more.

However, I think studying the nature of matter has yielded weaponry far more advanced than bed sheets that would dispatch a monster as easily as aiming and pulling the trigger!

Thanks for responding!

kolobian Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Well shoot. That's what I get for being a parrot.
> I admit I was never really skeptical of the
> doubling-life span meme. I'll have to look into it
> more.


You'll see the mistake repeated very often, I'm afraid. It's a pernicious meme. It's been written up in History journals, though. But if you simply look at how long recorded personages have lived you'll find all kinds of lives lived well past 60. Thomas Hobbes managed to live to 90+ well before the Enlightenment, for example. Shoot, he didn't pick up Euclid until 40!


> However, I think studying the nature of matter has
> yielded weaponry far more advanced than bed sheets
> that would dispatch a monster as easily as aiming
> and pulling the trigger!


Dude, you blasphemy. All monsters are metaphysical. Blast that with your lightsaber! (Wait, lightsabers don't blast. I'm really bad at the sci-fi/fantasy geek stuff.)

Hi Human

I think acquiring more knowledge does, or should, enhance metaphysical meaning (i.e. the "meaning of life") It will likely not provide the (specific) meaning of life, but what it does, or should, do is provide context and increased perspective. Moreover, knowledge sets the parameters of rational faith as to whatever "meaning of life" one wants to adopt.

I think that the context and perspective offered by science and philosophy can actually and legitimately encourage religious faith, even though there is nothing substantive in science that directly points to the existence of god. (I won't take time to expand upon this here.)

Finally, not all "meaning" is created equal. For myself, I am not impressed with a "functionally" effective meaning that is based upon limited, cherry-picked, or simply misunderstood "facts." Thus, if a religious person claims a transcendental experience as the basis for religious faith, I am O.K. with that, but the substance of the articulated faith better cohere with scientific facts and logic.

As you would say, CHEERS!

Henry Bemis Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> I think acquiring more knowledge does, or should,
> enhance metaphysical meaning (i.e. the "meaning of
> life")

For whom? For everyone? My observation is that most people don't think. At all. And yet live life well, functioning and flourishing well enough.

It will likely not provide the (specific)
> meaning of life,

Is there one? My guess is that there are as many meanings for life as there are people. In other words, the specific meaning of life is to have a meaning.

but what it does, or should, do
> is provide context and increased perspective.
> Moreover, knowledge sets the parameters of
> rational faith as to whatever "meaning of life"
> one wants to adopt.


For those who think, who like to attempt rationality, etc, yes. But is it controversial to say most people live from emotion rather than thought, even as they mistake their emotions for thought?



> Finally, not all "meaning" is created equal. For
> myself, I am not impressed with a "functionally"
> effective meaning that is based upon limited,
> cherry-picked, or simply misunderstood "facts."


This is where I really part with you. Meaning is personal; and another's meaning need not impress you in any way, you've your own to look after. And unless you believe we are close to knowing everything, everyone's base of facts is limited and likely misunderstood and cherry-picked, in light of what will be known 100 years from now.

I'm thoroughly with Orwell: It takes all kinds to make a world.


> As you would say, CHEERS!

As always, it's a pleasure. Cheers.

Human

> I think acquiring more knowledge does, or should,
> enhance metaphysical meaning (i.e. the "meaning of
> life")

For whom? For everyone? My observation is that most people don't think. At all. And yet live life well, functioning and flourishing well enough.

COMMENT: I take "meaning of life" to imply the adoption of a worldview that encompasses more than mundane "functioning and flourishing." The fact that most people do not bother thinking about such things does not make their flourishing (or lack of flourishing) "meaningful" in any metaphysical sense. (which is the sense we are talking about.)

It will likely not provide the (specific)
> meaning of life,

COMMENT: First, I was not claiming to know the "meaning of life," but was suggesting only that there are rational arguments to me made on th subject.

Is there one? My guess is that there are as many meanings for life as there are people. In other words, the specific meaning of life is to have a meaning.

COMMENT: I do not buy into the relativism here. Surely, people have different worldviews, with different "meaning of life" connotations, which work for them. But, I like to think that there is a fact of the matter. For example, either God exists or she doesn't. Either there is life after death or there isn't. Either there is some ultimate purpose in our life or there isn't. People can choose what they want to believe, but reality is not relative, even metaphysical reality.

"The specific meaning of life is to have a meaning."

COMMENT: Well, again, if someone has a worldview, and it works for them, i.e. it assigns meaning to their life, then, yes, in a sense the very assigning of the worldview is their meaning. But normally when we discuss metaphyscial reality we are not talking about a reality "for whom," rather we are talking about a definitive reality, even though ellusive. In other words we are not talking about psychology, we are talking metaphysics.

but what it does, or should, do
> is provide context and increased perspective.
> Moreover, knowledge sets the parameters of
> rational faith as to whatever "meaning of life"
> one wants to adopt.

For those who think, who like to attempt rationality, etc, yes. But is it controversial to say most people live from emotion rather than thought, even as they mistake their emotions for thought?

COMMENT: Well I think that neuroscience has made an interesting connection between emotion and rational thought, which makes your point. But, don't we have an ideal of an objectivity that attempts to distance our rationality thought from our emotions? Isn't that what we strive for? And isn't that the ideal of science--even if its true that "most people" are not very good at it.

> Finally, not all "meaning" is created equal. For
> myself, I am not impressed with a "functionally"
> effective meaning that is based upon limited,
> cherry-picked, or simply misunderstood "facts."

This is where I really part with you. Meaning is personal; and another's meaning need not impress you in any way, you've your own to look after. And unless you believe we are close to knowing everything, everyone's base of facts is limited and likely misunderstood and cherry-picked, in light of what will be known 100 years from now.

COMMENT: WHether we know everything or not, we have to assume that there is a fact of the matter of ultimate reality (whatever it is) that in principle will identify whose meaning is correct and whose is false. That means that our relative "meaning" assignments can be more or less true (or false) I personally believe that obtaining context and perspective through mental effort and study gives us better odds. But, I may be totally naive about that. But in any event, my mere assignment of meaning to life does not of itself identify reality. To say, "Well, it does for me," is just to assert subjective psychological comfort, and that is not what we are talking about when considering "the meaning of life."

HB

I see what you are saying about relativism and psychological comfort v. Ultimate metaphysical meaning. But consider this:

Is your life more meaningful in either or any sense whatever than a life lived 300 years ago or 3000 years ago just because you know more? Is your life more meaningful today than someone with an IQ of 90? Are you closer to the ultimate meaning of life because you have better access than others to Google, say?

I guess I don't go along with the assumption that rationality leads to more meaning, that more facts lead to more meaning, again to any kind of meaning you wish to distinguish.

My assumption is that ultimate meaning, should it exist, is well beyond rational thought and our notions of fact, objectivity etc. And I also assume that meaning is far more important to Humanity as a whole and to each individual than are facts etc. People have lived very well sans all kinds of facts for millennia, but take away meaning and all the facts in the world don't add up to much.

We don't use Science to find meaning, that is what Poetry is for. And as you know, I take poetry over the catalogue of facts every time.

Human

In ancient times until the the dark ages, people were pretty much as tall as they are now. Centuries of bad food, plagues, and then the little ice age, tended to shorten people. This will be the first generation where the children are not taller than the parents, since the U.S. began.

I think humanity will find a way to kill itself off before we get very far in figuring out the universe. I hold my expectations real low. The religious aren't even capable of thinking about it.

Best reply ever to this thread. Thanks!

I don't think I've figured it out, but at least I no longer farm out the responsibility.

Check that, I've never met anyone smart enough to agree with me on everything.

I agree with you on everything.

You are the smartest person I know.