(Jul 8, 2017 03:59 AM)Syne Wrote: "The death of God didn’t strike Nietzsche as an entirely good thing. Without a God, the basic belief system of Western Europe was in jeopardy, as he put it in Twilight of the Idols: “When one gives up the Christian faith, one pulls the right to Christian morality out from under one's feet. This morality is by no means self-evident… Christianity is a system, a whole view of things thought out together. By breaking one main concept out of it, the faith in God, one breaks the whole.”" - http://bigthink.com/scotty-hendricks/wha...od-is-dead
Humans are fundamentally significance creators. You may wish to sterilize that as "pattern recognizers" or something, but no staid phrase seems to capture the inherent creativity in man's desire and search for meaning.
Nietzsche was very critical of Christian morality and moral traditions based on the promise of an afterlife. They're resentful and life denying. He called for a revaluation of all values. The Übermensch is in love with life.
Quote:Nietzsche's relation to the problem of nihilism is a complex one. He approaches the problem of nihilism as deeply personal, stating that this predicament of the modern world is a problem that has "become conscious" in him. Furthermore, he emphasizes both the danger of nihilism and the possibilities it offers, as seen in his statement that "I praise, I do not reproach, [nihilism's] arrival. I believe it is one of the greatest crises, a moment of the deepest self-reflection of humanity. Whether man recovers from it, whether he becomes master of this crisis, is a question of his strength!"
According to Nietzsche, it is only when nihilism is overcome that a culture can have a true foundation upon which to thrive. He wished to hasten its coming only so that he could also hasten its ultimate departure.
The acknowledgement of God’s death allows one to wipe the slate clean. There is no presence to hide from—no need for fig leaves or coats of skin—no fear in being naked. You’re stripped with understanding and this knowledge itself should be the foundation for all ethical behavior.
What is terrifying is not the exposure of morality as a fiction, nor nihilism itself. If the accounts are true of Nietzsche defending a horse from man’s petty vanities, if anything, it’s a good analogy of how one feels when their eyes are opened. It is not the fear of God. It is the concept of God that is terrifying—the fear of man. Men who cover themselves with fig leaves. Men who believe in objective reality. Men who feel that their truth is universal and seek to enforce their point of view. Men like you, Syne.
Syne Wrote:If they're the same, why are "indifference" and "insignificance" so contrary to "purpose" and "connection"?
Personally, I don’t think that the red and the bill pill are in complete contradiction to one another. Both are true. You know about the matrix, yet you are embedded within the matrix.
Syne Wrote:Humans are fundamentally significance creators. You may wish to sterilize that as "pattern recognizers" or something, but no staid phrase seems to capture the inherent creativity in man's desire and search for meaning.
Yes, as an observer, you’re projecting your pattern recognition onto the universe. There’s no scientific basis for your anthropomorphic beliefs about nature, but from an aesthetic emotional point of view, yes, it is good. It’s beautiful, isn’t it, Syne?
(Jul 8, 2017 06:13 AM)Magical Realist Wrote: LOL! You're making an embarrassing fool out of yourself arguing against the undeniable. You lose chump..Now run along and go grovel before your god or whatever it is you think of as transcendence.
Translation: Out of arguments.
A secularist demanding that simple awe is "undeniably" transcendence....just because that's as close as his limited experience can get....and he doesn't even realize it.
Again, do you even see color? O_o
(Jul 8, 2017 04:02 PM)Secular Sanity Wrote:
(Jul 8, 2017 03:59 AM)Syne Wrote: "The death of God didn’t strike Nietzsche as an entirely good thing. Without a God, the basic belief system of Western Europe was in jeopardy, as he put it in Twilight of the Idols: “When one gives up the Christian faith, one pulls the right to Christian morality out from under one's feet. This morality is by no means self-evident… Christianity is a system, a whole view of things thought out together. By breaking one main concept out of it, the faith in God, one breaks the whole.”" - http://bigthink.com/scotty-hendricks/wha...od-is-dead
Humans are fundamentally significance creators. You may wish to sterilize that as "pattern recognizers" or something, but no staid phrase seems to capture the inherent creativity in man's desire and search for meaning.
Nietzsche was very critical of Christian morality and moral traditions based on the promise of an afterlife. They're resentful and life denying. He called for a revaluation of all values. The Übermensch is in love with life.
Non sequitur, or just avoiding what was actually posted? O_o
No one denied that Nietzsche was critical of Christianity or any of its trappings. So is this a straw man or just a red herring? O_o
Quote:The acknowledgement of God’s death allows one to wipe the slate clean. There is no presence to hide from—no need for fig leaves or coats of skin—no fear in being naked. You’re stripped with understanding and this knowledge itself should be the foundation for all ethical behavior.
"Hide from"? Are you really trying to entertain Eden as a worthwhile argument?
Quote:What is terrifying is not the exposure of morality as a fiction, nor nihilism itself. If the accounts are true of Nietzsche defending a horse from man’s petty vanities, if anything, it’s a good analogy of how one feels when their eyes are opened. It is not the fear of God. It is the concept of God that is terrifying—the fear of man. Men who cover themselves with fig leaves. Men who believe in objective reality.
Of course believing morality a fiction isn't scary. It allows for total ego gratification.
The concept of god sets the basis for things like objectivity and transcendence.
Quote:Men who feel that their truth is universal and seek to enforce their point of view. Men like you, Syne.
Quote me, or is this just another empty ad hominem attempt to poison the well? O_o
Quote:
Syne Wrote:If they're the same, why are "indifference" and "insignificance" so contrary to "purpose" and "connection"?
Personally, I don’t think that the red and the bill pill are in complete contradiction to one another. Both are true. You know about the matrix, yet you are embedded within the matrix.
Oh, you're one of those fan-fic morons. Got it.
Either that, or you're trying to say "indifference" and "insignificance" do not contradict "purpose" and "connection" with a completely unjustified analogy, i.e. bare assertion.
Quote:
Syne Wrote:Humans are fundamentally significance creators. You may wish to sterilize that as "pattern recognizers" or something, but no staid phrase seems to capture the inherent creativity in man's desire and search for meaning.
Yes, as an observer, you’re projecting your pattern recognition onto the universe. There’s no scientific basis for your anthropomorphic beliefs about nature, but from an aesthetic emotional point of view, yes, it is good. It’s beautiful, isn’t it, Syne?
What "anthropomorphic beliefs" do you think I have about nature? O_o
Quote:A secularist demanding that simple awe is "undeniably" transcendence.
Wow..What an idiot.
sec·u·lar·ist
ˈsekyələrəst/Submit
noun
1.
a person who advocates separation of the state from religious institutions.
"secularists fear the ruling party is trying to move in the direction of Islamic rule"
adjective
1.
advocating or relating to separation of the state from religious institutions.
"secularist ideology"
That would make you a secularist too moron. Or at least I hope it does. One wonders how secularist a totalitarian police state that enforces sterilization on women would be. Gotta save them holy fetuses afterall.
SyneJul 9, 2017 05:04 AM (This post was last modified: Jul 9, 2017 05:05 AM by Syne.)
(Jul 9, 2017 12:44 AM)Magical Realist Wrote:
Quote:A secularist demanding that simple awe is "undeniably" transcendence.
Wow..What an idiot.
sec·u·lar·ist
ˈsekyələrəst/Submit
noun
1.
a person who advocates separation of the state from religious institutions.
"secularists fear the ruling party is trying to move in the direction of Islamic rule"
adjective
1.
advocating or relating to separation of the state from religious institutions.
"secularist ideology"
That would make you a secularist too moron. Or at least I hope it does. One wonders how secularist a totalitarian police state that enforces sterilization on women would be. Gotta save them holy fetuses afterall.
No, you blathering dolt. Try looking further than the first thing that seems to affirm your simple-minded bias.
-ist
a suffix of nouns, often corresponding to verbs ending in -ize or nouns ending in -ism, that denote a person who practices, is expert in, or is concerned with something, or holds certain principles, doctrines, etc. - http://www.thefreedictionary.com/-ist
secularism
1. Religious skepticism or indifference.
2. The view that religious considerations should be excluded from civil affairs or public education.
1. (Philosophy) philosophy a doctrine that rejects religion, esp in ethics
2. the attitude that religion should have no place in civil affairs
3. the state of being secular
1. secular spirit or tendency, esp. a system of political or social philosophy that rejects religious faith and worship.
2. the view that public education and other matters of civil policy should be conducted without the influence of religious beliefs.
1. a view that religion and religious considerations should be ignored or excluded from social and political matters.
2. an ethical system asserting that moral judgments should be made without reference to religious doctrine, as reward or punishment in an afterlife.
- http://www.thefreedictionary.com/secularism
If you're even aware of half of these, you're obviously cherry-picking.
I do believe that the state should not establish a state religion, and I also believe that the US Constitution protects religious liberty. I'm sure you'd love nothing more than a secular totalitarian state that persecutes all religious people...simply for thinking things you don't like.
(Jul 9, 2017 02:53 AM)Secular Sanity Wrote:
(Jul 8, 2017 11:14 PM)Syne Wrote: The concept of god sets the basis for things like objectivity and transcendence.
I don't understand. How so?
Of course you don't, and I'm sure nothing I could say would ever enlighten you on the subject.
Science originally derived from religious ideas that the world was regular and fathomable enough to truly understand.
I've already explained the difference between awe and transcendence...which went completely over your head.
Quote:
Syne Wrote:Oh, you're one of those fan-fic morons. Got it.
No, but thanks for that. I’m sure I’m not the only person who has seen The Matrix. It presents numerous philosophical concepts.
Yeah, that you completely failed to justify have any relation to the mentioned contradiction. Unless you're saying something as empty and vaguely philosophizing as "there are no real contradictions".
Only fan-fic morons mention The Matrix as if the mention alone is self-evidently meaningful...without any real reference to ANY of the actual philosophical concepts raised therein.
I notice you failed to quote this part of my post:
Quote:Either that, or you're trying to say "indifference" and "insignificance" do not contradict "purpose" and "connection" with a completely unjustified analogy, i.e. bare assertion.
Thus verifying that you have no interest in actually justifying your nonsense....likely because you can't.
Just talk about The Matrix...hoping that will baffle someone...anyone.
Quote:
Syne Wrote:What "anthropomorphic beliefs" do you think I have about nature? O_o
Human significance.
Hence the demonstration of your inability to have a truly transcendent experience. "Purpose" and "connection" are only concepts of significance. Do you deny their existence just because you cannot scientifically quantify them? O_o
Or do you just think they're figments of our mind....as well as any transcendence derived from them? O_o
And in the book’s most personal chapter, Zuckerman describes the intangible glue he believes connects nonbelievers to the universe and to each other. It is something he calls “aweism.”
He calls it a “profound, overflowing feeling” that he knows only in fleeting moments: playing on the beach with his young daughter, eating grapes from his grandparents’ backyard, sledding in the dark of a January night, dancing with abandon at a favorite concert.
“Aweism … though steeped in existential wonder and soulful appreciation, is still very much grounded in this world,” he writes. “It is akin to what philosopher Robert Solomon dubs a ‘naturalized’ spirituality: a non-religious, non-theological, non-doctrinal orientation that is ‘right here, in our lives and in our world, not elsewhere.”
- http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/01/03...08000.html
transcendence - extending or lying beyond the limits of ordinary experience
There's the difference between religious and secular humanism in its essence -- in a nutshell, if you will. Religious humanists yearn to "express transcendence and connection with others." Secular humanists are fine with expressing connection with others, but inasmuch as they are secular, they attach great importance to the recognition that ... hang on now ... there is no such thing as "transcendence" or "the transcendent."
Essential to the secular view is the insight, rooted in science, that reality is mundane. It's the domain of matter, energy, and their interactions -- and nothing else.
On that view, words like divine, spirit, and transcendent share one essential quality: they have no referents in the real world. There is nothing to transcend, because the domain of everyday experience is -- so far as we can see, and the range of our seeing has gotten pretty good in recent decades -- the whole of what exists. Being all that is, it cannot be transcended. There is nothing "above" it, nothing "beyond" it ... there's just reality.
And this last from the Center for Inquiry, whose mission statement is:
"The mission of the Center for Inquiry is to foster a secular society based on reason, science, freedom of inquiry, and humanist values."
So one must ask, if you truly believe in the transcendent, are you really secular....or just conflating awe.
Quote:If you're even aware of half of these, you're obviously cherry-picking.
I simply showed you the ONLY definition of secularist, which is the word you misused in your spastic haste to ad hom me for something. Fortunately being a secularist isn't an ad hom after all. Thanks for the compliment.
from Wiktionary, Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike License
n. a person who believes in or supports secularism
from the GNU version of the Collaborative International Dictionary of English
n. One who theoretically rejects every form of religious faith, and every kind of religious worship, and accepts only the facts and influences which are derived from the present life; also, one who believes that education and other matters of civil policy should be managed without the introduction of a religious element.
from The Century Dictionary and Cyclopedia
n. One who theoretically rejects or ignores all forms of religious faith and worship established on the authority of revelation, and accepts only the facts and influences which are derived from the present life; one who main tains that public education and other matters of civil policy should be conducted without the introduction of a religious element.
Holding the principles of secularism.
from WordNet 3.0 Copyright 2006 by Princeton University. All rights reserved.
Quote:a person who believes in or supports secularism
from the GNU version of the Collaborative International Dictionary of English
Same definition.
Quote:n. One who theoretically rejects every form of religious faith, and every kind of religious worship, and accepts only the facts and influences which are derived from the present life; also, one who believes that education and other matters of civil policy should be managed without the introduction of a religious element.
Right again. Separation of religion from education and govt.
Quote:one who main tains that public education and other matters of civil policy should be conducted without the introduction of a religious element.
Holding the principles of secularism.
from WordNet 3.0 Copyright 2006 by Princeton University. All rights reserved.
Same definition again. Thanks for confirming what I just said chump..
Oh and lest there still be a question of what secularism means:
"Secularism is the principle of the separation of government institutions and persons mandated to represent the state from religious institutions and religious dignitaries (the attainment of such is termed secularity). One manifestation of secularism is asserting the right to be free from religious rule and teachings, or, in a state declared to be neutral on matters of belief, from the imposition by government of religion or religious practices upon its people.[Notes 1] Another manifestation of secularism is the view that public activities and decisions, especially political ones, should be uninfluenced by religious beliefs or practices."------https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secularism
"Let’s start with some brief definitions. Atheism, put simply, is a term that covers a wide variety of schools of thought that ponder and/or posit the non-existence of God/s. Among scholars there is a fascinating debate about when precisely atheism arose. One compelling theory (see writers like Alan Kors and Michael Buckley) is that nonbelief as a coherent worldview developed within Christian theological speculation in early modernity.
Secularism, on the other hand, has nothing to do with metaphysics. It does not ask whether there is a divine realm. It is agnostic, if you will, on the question of God’s existence — a question that is way above its pay grade.
What secularism does concern itself with are relations between Church and State. It is a flexible doctrine that can embody a lot of policy positions. Strict separationism is one, but not the only, of those positions. At its core, secularism is deeply suspicious of any entanglement between government and religion.
Secularism needs to be disarticulated from atheism for a variety of reasons. First and foremost, these two isms are simply not synonyms. One concerns itself with primarily with politics, the other with (anti-) metaphysics. They have different concerns, intellectual moorings and histories (though, interestingly, it may be that both emanated from Christian theological inquiry)."-------http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jacques-be...99588.html
Advice..when ad homing, it is preferrable you use words of the english language instead of making up your own.
SyneJul 9, 2017 06:32 AM (This post was last modified: Jul 9, 2017 06:33 AM by Syne.)
Sure, little buddy, just keep telling yourself that. What a wonderful little red herring you've found to distract from your utter misunderstanding of the transcendent.
(Jul 8, 2017 11:14 PM)Syne Wrote: The concept of god sets the basis for things like objectivity and transcendence.
I don't understand. How so?
Of course you don't, and I'm sure nothing I could say would ever enlighten you on the subject.
Science originally derived from religious ideas that the world was regular and fathomable enough to truly understand.
I've already explained the difference between awe and transcendence...which went completely over your head.
A rush of powerful, transforming emotion. A bolt of altered perspective. A love that overwhelms. An unmediated encounter with pure beauty. A profound realization of significance—or insignificance.
When a humanist has a “wow” experience, by what name should we call it? Transcendence?
Transcendence is a word that makes many who embrace humanism and naturalism recoil. And for understandable reason, with its connotations to both supernaturalism and mumbo-jumbo. Can transcendence be expressed and understood in a way that is humanistic, rather than supernatural?
The answer is yes. For humanism to not explicitly embrace such experiences risks limiting humanism’s appeal and reducing its potential for personal meaning. If a culture does not provide explicit links between such profound experiences and a naturalistic interpretation, these powerful and possibly transformational experiences can easily be misinterpreted, by default, as being part of a provincial religious story.
The rush of naturalistic transcendence is available in several ways: when we glimpse universals, when we treasure particulars, and when we expand our consciousness. All these types of experiences can be both transcendent and fully understood as naturalistic phenomena in a naturalistic world.
One common understanding of transcendence is an encounter with a world beyond ourselves, beyond full comprehension. But why must this be interpreted as supernatural? A naturalistic world offers an abundance of experiences and understandings beyond our individual lives. There is deep time, extending unfathomably into the past and unfathomably into the future, with our entire lives constituting but a blip. There is deep space, with hundreds of billions of galaxies separated by incomprehensibly vast distances, in which Earth is but a speck. There are concepts of energy, mathematics, human history, and evolution. There is joy in the idea that consciousness even exists. There is the experience of love. Neither a deity nor a complete loss of individuality to a greater power is necessary to experience the grandeur of these great mysteries. There’s an awful lot that is bigger than any of us. And when we get it, really get it, when intellect and emotions come rushing together, transcendence seems a powerful word for that experience.
This study is part of a growing body of work on what psychologists call “self-transcendent experiences.”
A new paper in the Review of General Psychology, “The Varieties of Self-Transcendent Experience,” defines these states as transient moments when people feel lifted above the hustle and bustle of daily life, their sense of self fades away, and they feel connected to something bigger. In such states, people typically report feelings of awe and rapture; of time stopping; and of feeling a sense of unity with other people, nature, God, or the universe.
That was Janeen’s experience on psilocybin: “There was not one atom of myself,” she said, “that did not merge with the divine.”
Transcendence is a fundamental part of the human experience. Since the dawn of our species, people have been losing themselves in ritualistic prayer, song, and dance.
Mind-altering substances are one path to transcendence, but they’re not the only one. You can lose yourself in love, or feel awe watching a lightning storm from your porch. You can get into a state of flow at work, or take a break from the rush of everyday life by meditating. And these experiences exist on a spectrum, as Yaden points out: There are “major transcendent experiences,” where your sense of self completely dissolves and you feel at one with the universe — which is what Janeen experienced. And then there are more everyday experiences, like when you step outside of your head while listening to a beautiful piece of music, taking a walk through the woods, or attending a religious service. According to Yaden, most people have had some sort of transcendent experience at some point in their lives — and about a third of the population has had intense experiences of unity.
I’m asking and I’m listening, Syne. Maybe it would help if you described your own personal experience.
Jul 8, 2017 04:02 PM
(This post was last modified: Jul 8, 2017 05:24 PM by Secular Sanity.)
