So I'd personally recommend philosophy to people, instead of religion. Bertrand Russell (also known for his mathematical work) is an excellent place to start.
EDIT: For those who disagree, I'd recommend a Russell's essay "Why I Am Not A Christian" [0]. It is quite short and readable.
Religion is philosophy, plus ritual and aesthetics. It's the set of philosophies that have survived the ravages of time. It's a set of philosophies that are so useful to live by, that these philosophies have survived through books and rituals for millennia. Or put another way, these philosophies are so incredibly effective, that people are surviving today precisely because they've lived by those philosophies, and the only reason we know of these philosophies is because they are survived by, and helped to survive, the people who've passed and continue to pass them down to others.
There existed philosophies you've never heard of, that are dead, because they died with the people who've followed them. Is it just chance? Is it because the surviving philosophies are better? Who knows. But if you're a betting man, you should bet on those surviving philosophies being actually better, more useful, more conducive to survival.
>the focus on "removing the doubt"
I think this is a focus exclusive to "nu-Christian" Anglosphere denominations, primarily American ones, and their focus is made a spectacle of because: (1) their focus is understandably cringe and the outrage is entertaining (2) the spectacle is used as a tool to de-legitimize religion as a whole, especially Christianity.
I get what you're saying but to offer another perspective, informed by the work of Rober Pirsig as presented in his second book 'Lila': I think those religions/philosophies you mention are an organism of their own, with humans as their hardware. Are they really more useful for any given human? (certainly some are not, if we choose a human who's an outlier, a 'black sheep', so to speak) Or ar they useful and more conductive to the survival of the religion/philosophy itself?
I think it's a struggle between intellect (the individual) and culture (religion, country, a political party, etc.).
Nope. Religion tends to bring people together, often making them much more powerful as a group. But to me, it's just not worth selling out.
> I think this is a focus exclusive to "nu-Christian" Anglosphere denominations
I don't think that is the case. John 14:6 says:
“I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No man comes to the Father but by me”
> Now Thomas, one of the twelve, called the Twin, was not with them when Jesus came. So the other disciples told him, “We have seen the Lord.” But he said to them, “Unless I see in his hands the mark of the nails, and place my finger into the mark of the nails, and place my hand into his side, I will never believe.” John 20:24-25
If that's not encouraging engaging with doubt I don't know what is.
> If that's not an effort to restrict doubt, then what is?
I can tell you that 1 + 1 = 2 and you can still doubt me. Just because you doubt me it doesn't make that statement any less true. Also, me stating that fact isn't me restricting doubt, it's just me stating a fact. If Jesus was God, and what He says here is true, He's stating a fact. You can choose to believe or not to believe, or doubt or not to doubt.
Personally I see it a ’truth’ like in scientific truth and personal integrity.
Imagine Jesus as the incarnation of the best possible person. I you where to try to based your actions in a similar way, what would you do?
"No man comes to the Father but by me”:
You won't be the best version of yourself by chasing any other things (fame, money, pleasure, etc)
I too was disgusted by the first degree interpretation (obviously false) but I now discover a second degree reading that explain our human condition and most of our problems.
Look into Peterson Biblical lecture on Youtube if you want to see a psychological way of looking at the bible.
I still can't figure out how to deal with it, which is why I usually refrain from arguing with religious people. Afterall, when it comes to the big questions (like, is there a god), neither one of us can bring anything to the table - it's impossible to know by definition. And since all religious teachings are based on the existence of a god, there is no way to convince anyone of anything without first proving the unprovable. It's like two completely different sets of axioms - of course the conclusions are gonna be different, and the concept of axioms being "right" or "wrong" is meaningless by itself.
The fact that it was written in a book gave it incredible power and have allow our civilisation to exist and science to be developed but also removed much of the evolutions of the stories.
Now that our world change so fast the stories seems very outdated to our modern mind but most of them speak about a deep human conditions and traps we feel into multiple times.
It hard to speak to christians as most see it a first level reading (literally true) but most people are not ready to go into deep analysis of meaning, they need a story to unite them, to show them a way to a good life and so it was for all people 200 years ago.
Without those stories people put other things in its place (false idols) like money, pleasure, diversity and equity, communism, fascism, etc.
To the question is there a God, the God of the bible is a mix of the natural environment (god of wind, god of the sun, etc) and the human civilisation ’thou shall not kill’ if you kill, God will be angry: you are going to have a bad time (at the hands of other humans)
If you have the time, the Peterson lectures gave me a way to understand it that make sense to me (no bearded magician in the sky)
> “You have a right to be confused. This is a confusing situation. Do not take anything on trust merely because it has passed down through tradition, or because your teachers say it, or because your elders have taught you, or because it’s written in some famous scripture. When you have seen it and experienced it for yourself to be right and true, then you can accept it.”
I really like the quote you've posted. I dislike bullshit. There are many bullshit Buddhism resources out there. Where can I find the real thing?
Many Christians believe that you must believe in Jesus to get into heaven. I prefer what Proust said (paraphrasing - the actual quote I can't find and is far more beautiful): "Who is more likely to get into heaven - someone who believes in god, despises and judges the world and mankind or someone who loves all of gods creations without judgement but doesn't believe in him?" I refuse to think a loving god would make the litmus test such an arbitrary thing.
You cannot have faith and despise the world, you are supposed to judges your failings first before judging others.
One constant teaching was that Christianity is not a religion. But about forming a relationship with God through Christ.
How can one even begin to attempt that task if one truly doubts that God exists? Also, is believing a God of some sort not exactly what a religion is?
A relationship is trying to understand God. What he means. How you can serve him. What kind of life Christ lived. How to live as an example to others.
Everyone has doubts. Most of my teachers would talk about times that they struggled.
It takes a lot of faith to believe that there is an all powerful God. that loves you for you.
It also takes faith to believe that universe popped out of nothing, the conditions for life happened to be just right, and that it’s also meaningless.
Maybe Christians are wrong. But maybe not. Worse that happens is people were nicer to each other for awhile. The other is that you spend eternity in Heaven.
I feel like I kind of get what you're saying. But it seems to even have this perspective that one ought to try to believe in God, to be motivated to struggle, one already has to accept religious teachings of some kind.
I don't struggle to believe that the universe popped out of nothing, I very easily and without any effort on my part maintain the belief that it's pretty much impossible for us to know where the universe came from and that it's probably not worth expending too much effort worrying about it. I'd see having to make an effort to believe something somewhat of a red flag regarding the validity of that belief.
> Worse that happens is people were nicer to each other for awhile. The other is that you spend eternity in Heaven.
I mean, some religious people are nice to each other. Others are downright nasty and make life very difficult for people who don't fit into their worldview (for example because they're gay). And presumably the worst case is that there is in fact a God who happens to take the opposite view on morality to the Christian one and thus Christians end up spending an eternity in Hell. As far as I can that's no less likely than there being a Christian God.
A Christian can just as easily say:
I don't struggle to believe that God created the universe out of nothing, I very easily and without any effort on my part maintain the belief that it's pretty much impossible for us to know where the universe came from and that it's probably not worth expending too much effort worrying about it. I'd see having to make an effort to believe something somewhat of a red flag regarding the validity of that belief.
Most reasonable Christians (at least 90% of the Christians I know and have met) will readily admit that we don't know with a 100% certainty that God created the universe. We have faith that He did, but we could very well be wrong. If I'm wrong, at least I've lived a full life and felt like my life had meaning.
> Others are downright nasty and make life very difficult for people who don't fit into their worldview (for example because they're gay)
People get all hung up about a Christian saying that it's a sin to be gay. We also say it's a sin to lie, and it's a sin to lust after a woman (or man) that isn't your spouse, and it's a sin to engage in gluttony. Does that mean we look down on people who have sinned and reject them? No, because like Romans says, all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. The law is like a mirror. It's a lot easier to see your flaws in a perfect reflective mirror then it is to see them in an old foggy one. The law is a perfect mirror that shows us the depravity we _all_ have inside of us, and it exists so we can strive to be better.
No one will ever attain perfection, but that doesn't mean we're free to go on sinning. Romans is an amazing book if you want to read about a devout Christian's struggle with sin.
Anyways, if a person engages in homosexual behavior, do I think that's a sin? Yes. But I also sin every day. It doesn't excuse it, but it's also no better or worse than any sin that I commit, it just happens to be one I don't struggle with. And if you don't want to be a Christian and still want to be gay, go for it! I'm not going to stop you. Because we're adults, and we make our own choices. It's as simple as that.
My opinion on the behavior means nothing, and I'm not going to berate strangers for engaging in an activity they already know I disapprove of because of my worldview. I literally don't need to say anything, and I won't unless they specifically ask me what my thoughts are on the matter.
Who revealed themselves directly only before the enlightenment, and thereafter must be experienced only in ones mind, testimony from those long dead, or by the evidence of supposed creation.
So there are definitely religions that encourage doubting whether God exists. Eventually you have to come to some sort of immovable mover. Whether that's the Big Bang or God, so there's nothing inherently illogical about believing in something that is timeless and has always existed.
This isn't the case as often as you might think. Consider religions like Unitarianism, for example. You can also make a strong case that the doubt is baked foundationally into Christianity itself-- consider Zizek's readings of Chesterton and Hegel: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TEuY46p5yH4
> And as soon as you remove the doubt ban, you don't really have a religion anymore, but a philosophy
Lots of philosophers were/are extremely religious
This is certainly not true of the Christianity that I've been witness to all my life. In those circles, doubt is a given - an intrinsic component of the inquisitive human mind - and doubt is basically the core of all faith. If there's no room for doubt, there's no room for faith.
Modern usages of the word "religion" group Christians and Muslims (for example), groups that would see themselves as distinct.
Interestingly, you can see a bridge period of sorts. If you think back to characters in movies of the 30s and 40s saying "I am not a religious man, but..." or "I am not a praying man, but..." you can kind of see the shift. A little reference to the good standing meaning but also some of the outsider type frame.
All that shift in meaning seems to do is that it determines which belief systems are considered appropriate by a speaker, and which aren't...
As a funny aside, I went to look up the etymology of the word and a quotation is listed at https://www.etymonline.com/word/Cult:
"Cult is a term which, as we value exactness, we can ill do without, seeing how completely religion has lost its original signification. Fitzedward Hall, "Modern English," 1873"
It strikes me as funny because the problem with the word 'religion' is noted as far back as 1873, but I'd argue 'cult' is now even less precise than 'religion'. I don't think it was always that way. References to Roman mystery religions as 'cults' generally lack the pejorative connotation.
This advice simply doesn't work if the recipient is an atheist.
To me, Religious texts are made up fiction that hold no more meaning in my world view than Harry Potter or Game of Thrones. If you read enough fiction on a shared topic, you'll be able to pull the same number of 'enlightening' quotes from those books as religious people can from their own sacred tomes.
However, IF you are a religious person, and find meaning in your religious books, then take the win, and enjoy that path. It's just that it's not a path everyone can take.
If pressed I guess I’ll say it’s unlikely to be true. But that’s not the point. I don’t even care to explain the point really. But both me and my wife ran Meetup groups about being atheist and eventually decided reading Christian philosophy and teachings was a better bet than the slow crushing millstone of the weight of the universe awaiting me behind the curtain of materialism.
There’s a lot of really bad stuff and I think Christianity needs reforming, but I still think it’s the better long term bet in terms of the wellbeing of me and my future generations.
As an atheist, you weren't a practicing atheist. You were an agitator with a religion of your own, which is projecting and spreading atheism. I used to call these folks "militant atheists" because, like when I was a teenager and left the Catholic church, I was ready to treat others the way I'd been treated (and seen others treated). This is not a healthy paradigm for leaving any community though and furthermore it repeats the sins of the past.
> Like, I frankly don’t give a damn about the truth or falsity of religion anymore. That’s not the point. It lets me act as if my life has meaning regardless of whether or not that’s true, which even when I directly reflect on it is a small amount of comfort insulating me from the yawning abyss of existential terror I felt throughout all of my 20s and half of my teens.
... and then you adopted the mindset of an actual atheist (one without religion), and then adopted a religion!
For what it's worth, I'm glad you're happy, that's really what matters. Maybe now that you have experience as someone without religion it gives you perspective as someone with faith. From what you've written, it sounds like that's the case.
A final thought (and opinion) that no one asked for: as an atheist I applaud the healthy exercise of and engagement with religion. The only time in which I object to religions or institutions is when they think their ideas are proper enough to be codified into law. For that, we have science and bureaucracy, of which religion can be a part of neither due to self-interested hegemony, which is an obvious conflict of interest.
I've been reading Stoic philosophers for some time now and it has helped me a lot. Christianity seems to take a lot from them and adds a mythical spin.
I think the biggest issue with religion stems from the fact that many people fail to understand religious texts are not factual they are metaphorical. Unfortunately, throughout history (and still today) this misunderstanding has been used and led to an incalculable number of heinous crimes.
But the label of atheist has been imbued with all sorts of negativity. So much so that some people hear it and think being an atheist actually makes someone evil, without any care for the well-being of other humans. Or they think the atheist must be miserable and unfeeling.
It's why I don't even use the term any more. I don't know if other people I'm talking to will have the same definition of the term that I do. If someone asks me about my religious beliefs, I simply say that I have none.
The “atheist community” (and it was oddly enough a real thing for awhile, with atheist church and everything! Look up Oasis on YouTube). It attracted people who were hedonistic and amoral and, in retrospect, went down in flames about how you’d have expected.
I’m not just some isolated Christian who has never met an atheist deriding them as some sort of bogeyman, I was friends with people in Poly Quads and met spouses who were bullied by their SO into being swingers, then watched 50 year olds behave like teenagers with all the consummate drama as well.
Once we had kids we totally removed ourselves from that situation and it fell apart a few years later, after the leader (who was originally a Christian pastor, I might add) got #metoo’ed for (surprise surprise) having sex with half the women in the organization.
The problem is expecting the dogma of a thousands years old tradition and book to be absolutely true. There are things in the Bible and Christianity that are basically tall tales. For example, I doubt Jesus was immaculately conceived, but it makes for a great story. People make up stories about remarkable people. I believe Jesus was a real person who had world-changing insights, but I'm afraid a lot of cruft has built up around him and been carried forward as literal truth.
The challenge for an individual is separating the wheat from the chaff.
Most of my thoughts on the matter are derived from Tolstoy's The Kingdom of God is Within You.
1. man serves self and family
2. man serves state and country
3. man serves god
He believed many of our problems are due to most of us still being stuck at level 2 of existence. A man at level 3 is immune to the problems of a man at level 2. For example, they couldn't even compel Jesus w/ bodily harm. They killed him, and what good did it do them?
He also argued that the shift to level 3 is inevitable and already in progress.
The thing is that the stories in religious books help paint a picture of life and offer anecdotes on how one can navigate it. There is no need to look for enlightenment, just practical advice on how to deal with tough life situations and help you find motivation and strength to power through. Thousands of years of observing and documenting people's lives through stories and metaphors has value, even for us non-believers.
I think you'd even be surprised how many people who regularly attend church services don't actually believe in the mystic aspect of it all; it's the community and guidance that have the most value to them.
Church selection seems to play a big role. I don't know too much about it but from other commenters, there are apparently churches that emphasize the mysticism and paranormal side of Christianity, some that focus on the texts, some that mostly deal with hero-worship and the hero's origin story, some that are basically political Trump rallies, and some more laid back ones that are basically social/music clubs.
How do you feel about The Iliad, Plato's dialogues, the Mahabharata, Tao Te Ching, or the Epic of Gilgamesh? Do they also offer "no more meaning in your world" than modern fantasy novels?
I didn't think being an atheist meant closing ones mind to human culture. Guess I've been doing it wrong.
Admittedly I do ignore parts of it - there's a lot of "wives should be obedient" stuff in there that has not aged well for instance - and I read it as God representing something like the Chinese Dao - IE the impersonal and immaterial laws of nature, the way that things unfold, and faith in God being an active version of the Stoic idea that you can't change the things you don't have control over, so just let it be.
>Religious texts are made up fiction that hold no more meaning in my world view
Plato's The Cave allegory is relevant, even though no one would ever live in a cave like that and it's obviously fiction. Some people treat the Bible as a historical text, but most don't. Some people believe the earth is flat too, there's always that 10-20%.
Having said that, I tried reading the Bible but I couldn't get through all the begats. I do like hearing honest people discuss it though. Like anything, it can certainly be weaponized.
There is a lot to learn about life and human nature in religion. You don’t have to believe in an afterlife or practice dogma to get something out of it.
I've always found good fiction enlightening. There is no need to be so serious about it.
My biggest criticism of religion is the very boundary drawn between fiction and scripture: that adherents to a religion must treat fiction as if it is reality.
All too often, that means obsessing over obedience to a structure of rules/dogma, instead of confronting the reality right in front of us; like voting to restrict gay marriage so God will bless our country, instead of learning to empathize with people around us to become a better community.
Agreed. This is the part that really gets under my skin… its been my understanding for most of my life that the bible specifically is full of allegory, not history. Yet, so many many of the “believers” I encounter don’t know what “allegory” means. The bible is their literal truth!
Tbh, knowing this isn’t helpful. It somehow makes me more paralyzed in dealing with literal believers. It always feels like they know they’re full of shit, but won’t admit it. There’s a disingenuousness to it that very deeply bothers me.
Being able to think critically of religion means being agnostic or atheist.
My assertion is that it's not you who is paralyzed, but anyone who cannot criticize their own position.
Do we know how this is going to play out, though? Has matrimony between same sex couples ever been widely available in any civilization? Rome, Greece, China and Egypt all had various different approaches to open homosexual relationships overtime, but it's hard to find any significant civilization that broadly equated same sex unions and heterosexual marriage. I'll allow that my research on this is incomplete.
I think anyone who thinks they know for certain how this kind of social change will play out on the scale of decades or centuries is mistaken. It's possible that everything turns out great and we enter a golden era of tolerance and flourishing human relationships, but at the same time there's usually something worth fearing in the unknown, which is why we tend to.
From what I can tell, the only group claiming to know what will happen in the future are religious conservatives who want gay marriage outlawed. It's their claim that homosexual unions will lead to a bad societal outcome, and that claim is based purely on religious dogma.
It doesn't matter if the Bible/Koran/whatever is a fact or not. Religious beliefs/texts are an extension of human evolution and should be seen that way. Questioning their wisdom in helping humans thrive is like questioning the value of arms.
Like proscriptions on pork or seafood; we have a pretty good understanding of the consequences of eating pork and don't necessarily have to rely on something that was a useful rule of thumb absent that knowledge.
Did you also know the universe wasn't created in 6 days?
If this is true, does it mean that churches all over the world did a big disservice to the holy books and stopped the evolution by creating institutions dedicated to preserve text of this books in unchanged form argumenting that those books literally are word of God and thus cannot be changed?
I'm sure you have some great ideas about living. Let's check the reproductive rate of the people who follow your ideas in a thousand years.
The west is in the process of creating a new one (modern liberal values), but as with most rewrites, you probably should have understood the existing solution before throwing it out.
I submit that plenty of religious thought patterns (things and systems you are not allowed to question the wisdom of, obsequious deference to authority, etc.) exist outside the halls of churches. PG's essay on heresy comes to mind.
Then try Buddhism? More of a philosophy than a religion, and seems to have hit on the idea thousands of years ago that most problems in humanity are to do with mental illness of one sort or another.
Buddhism as conceptualized in the western world is a marketing strategy that appeals to people thanks to the fact the Buddhism is exotic, the same reason Christian symbolism is à la mode in Asia (just see how many anime have Christian themes). If you could repackage Christianity to convince these people that it is new, exotic and exciting they would convert immediately.
By the way, there are philosophical traditions, both in Buddhism and Christianity, that reject any supernatural claim and see religion as a useful but not true moral framework, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_atheism
P.S.: I'm an atheist. I'm not defending a religion or another.
In fact, Harry Potter And The Sacred Text does exactly that!
I have been downvoted many times (not sure why?) for stating this on HN, but I will state it again:
It's sad that this line of thinking has taken over the modern time. We now have "science", so we don't need any of that silly stuff like "philosophy" or "art" or "religion". All can be explained through the scientific method and all other branches of human intellect are null and avoid.
Of course, this comes from the new Atheists who influenced a lot of the younger generation years a go when they started but their ideas actually stems from older philosophers who shaped the modern day thinking.
Mainly Karl Marx, Friedrich Nietzsche (who was also influenced by Feuerbach), Jean Paul Sartre and Michel Foucault.
For example, What did Jean-Paul Sartre say? "Existence precedes essence" and you can _clearly_ see how this has affected the modern Atheism mentality in the 21st century.
If existence precedes essence, then everything is relative and nothing can be objective and absolute; thus to claim things such as objective morality in the way that religion does is meaningless.
Don't forget that Sartre said: "If God exists, I can't be free, but I am free. Therefore God does not exist". Once again, if you look carefully enough, you absolutely see this in the modern world. The New Atheists for example, took all their ideas and spread them from these philosophers. What was Hitchen's famous quote? He would constantly regurgitate Karl Marx: "Religion is the opium of the people" which again.. is rooted from Sartre philosophy.
There is a great talk about this here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8KQcm0Mi5To
More to it, to anyone who claims religious people are intellectual inept, I would simply challenge you to read any of the material written by the intellectuals of the tradition. For example, for Christianity they would be: Augustine of Hippo, Anselm of Canterbury, Thomas Aquinas or John Henry Newman and tell me you're dealing with someone who has suspended his critical faculties.
You are welcome to disagree with them of course, but to claim that we should simply replace these materials with math books is disingenuous.
Just my 2c.
Op didn't say anything about art or philosophy. You added that stuff in. Atheism doesn't preclude art or philosophy.
> All can be explained through the scientific method
As opposed to "all can be explained through God"? How is that any better?
That's a straw man - we all are idiots sometimes (I believe that most of times but that just me) and this little silly observation can be easily used to explain how otherwise rational and intelligent person can hold two opposite views in their had. Our rational abilities are greatly exaggerated by people like You who believe that there are magical others that can be rational all the time in all aspects of their life. Those people believe in God because they want to believe (by which I mean its an emotional decision and not an logical one) and the logic is there only to rationalize what their emotions are telling them. I suspect that if medicine will get advanced enough we will see finally that by just playing with memory and emotional state of person we can easily turn the most avid believer into Christopher Hitchens (and vice versa).
It’s a curios byproduct of human inquisitiveness and that’s it. it shouldn’t have any special rights or claims to have a deeper understanding of the universe that would even give certain people (priests etc) to be the judges of other people’s actions.
The world wouldn’t succumb into chaos if all churches / mosques etc . were gone in an instant and people forgot they existed as anything but pretty buildings.
There were of course smart and kind people at all times and they happened to use the vehicles of religion some long long time ago when it seemed like the best logic toolbox for the mind
> Knowing that HN is generally against it, I say it anyway
I am actually on the contrarian side of you, but thanks for putting you out there. I understand and respect your point and everything, but there is one thing, that I want to put out regarding what you said. To state the following, is quite problematic:
> Religious scholars have actually been the best psychologists but are generally dismissed by non-believers.
Without going into detail, for every profession, there are people who are good and bad at it. This has nothing to do with any background or anything. The difference with psychologists and priests/ missionaries/ etc. is, that one is certified and the other is not necessarily certified. This makes a huge difference in liability of the term/ role and it's rather dangerous to put them in the same bag. And I don't think to make this distinction is not dismissive.
Anyway, not to be insulting, but it is all a bunch of made up nonsense for a time when we did not have actual explanatory knowledge for our existence and universe. We do now. Religion and its institutions are dying out in industrialized nations because they have lost their claim to having all the answers.
() I say we think we know because I'm actually agnostic (I typically say 'atheist' because it stops some conversion attempts I'm not looking for from even starting, judging by your two comments on this thread I reckoned I can give you the honest answer as you won't try to convert me into anything!) and I believe we can only know what we conclude from the information collected by our senses and our thinking process after that, but an error in either the information collection (think of how the first scientific estimates of the age of the planet were off by a long shot on account of choosing a poor thing to measure -- I'm thinking about the work of Halley here) or in the thought process would result in bad knowledge, and it seems to me there's a part of the scientific-minded population right now that has a blind spot for this: there's overconfidence in science.
To cut to the chase: our brains are just piles of chemistry. There is no meaning. We make it up, and that is ok. “Why” we exist is coincidence and millions of years of happy little evolutionary experiments blindly conducted by nature. Maybe there is a Deus ex Machina in there, but for our purposes does it really matter?
I'm not religious either, but I always find this hard to believe. What are the odds nature happened to provide all the building blocks for us to be here to question our existence? It seems far more likely that (i) nothing would exist, (ii) the universe wouldn't have the right combination of properties and forces to maintain its own existence, or (iii) it would be a boring universe filled with a couple of basic elements capable of producing nothing of interest. Instead, we have complex life and we're here building iPhones and spaceships.
For that reason I can't believe there's a single universe and through coincidence it happened to contain everything needed for life. Even if we go with the multiverse theory and a near infinite number of universes, I still find it difficult to believe. You can argue the universe is filled with a bunch of garbage and we're assigning meaning and value to that garbage because it's us, and we want to feel important. However, I really don't feel like anything (and certainly not something as complex as us) should exist in the first place. I want to say it's too much of a coincidence to happen by chance, but at the same time, I don't have a better answer as to why we're here.
What is so remarkable about the iPhone or the spaceship? Why is it worthy of note when compared to any other phenomena in the universe? What brings you to make a distinction between a live human body and an inanimate celestial body?
I'm not trying to say that humans are more important or meaningful than a rock. I agree with you that nothing inherently has meaning and it's an attribute we create and assign. I'm only saying that we're intelligent beings that are capable of some rather advanced tasks, such as creating a iPhone. In my opinion, it seems far less likely for us to exist than either nothing, or a simpler universe without us.
Yes, it's not impossible, just like I could throw a handful of sand in that air that falls to the ground and happens to write the story of my life. It's so unlikely though that I can't help but wonder if it wasn't just chance that we're here.
It means (pun intended) that the meaning is not self sustaining term in our reality - there is no absolute meaning outside of our perception. There is only relative meaning (as in what kind of meaning my perception assigns to things that can be observed by me - simply put - we create our own meaning).
It can be simplified further to there is no meaning or the meaning does not exist but in my opinion this is oversimplification and reeks of nihilism.
So if You look at things from the point of view described above the "why" question (which can be paraphrased to "what is the meaning") is wrong.
I also wanted to add that it's not that I think it is wrong to ask such questions, only that I think they're wrong when considered from within our system of knowledge, so I find them unanswerable.
Kind of how like "what kind of food does that digital computer like?" is a wrong question.
The why question has no answer nor will it ever have an answer. Life doesn't need justification or orchestration. It's a freak accident of molecules. It could have never happened and it can end by means of a disaster and the universe will happily continue without it.
As to what a human can/should to with their life other than not dying and trying to reproduce, that's an entirely cultural question. Cultural is a fancy word for: we made it up.
Citation not required, as long as you believe, assumedly?
That ship sailed a while ago, my parents aren't religious, and I don't know any religious people.
I fell in love with this girl who I had known on/off for a long time. I found out she was an escort (quietly but distinctly confirmed payment-for-sex) in her spare time (she was a student when this all happened). This was really upsetting and had me very distraught. I simultaneously could see a life with her, but also felt disgusted at the escorting.
I wished I could speak with my grandfather about it. I knew he'd know what to tell me. But he had recently passed away. "Well, what did I like about Grandpa? Could I find a substitute? I need like, an old person who has reliable wisdom and experience, not just some wino who has hung on. Why isn't this a thing? An old person a community can approach for advice on..."
"Oh I think I need a priest."
When I went looking for one though, it was all about accepting Jesus into my heart and spiritual learnings and miracles that I must accept literally happened, etc. Real hard to find the "old wise person who can help me navigate this thing".
This doesn’t represent true Buddhism like Asians would recognize it, but I think it does highlight how you can build a practice and adopt the world outlook without the supernatural.
A low-level Zen inspired practice may be what you’re looking for
Any sources that will back this claim? Oh wait, you don't need facts. Do you give this sort of unsolicited religious advice to everyone or do you specifically choose people who are troubled?
I mean, there's a fairly strong Darwinistic argument for the validity of certain religions. Very few belief systems have survived a hostile environment for anywhere near as long as the big religions.
If religious belief systems are "wrong" (in the sense of being useful for navigating the world, not in the sense of satisfying certain conditions of symbolic logic and reasoning), then why have these religions triumphed over secularism time and time again?
I'd still consider myself an atheist, but even then I'd be careful to be so dismissive of belief systems that have proven themselves over the course of millennia to be incredibly powerful, enlightening and enriching.
I always find it ironic when the "Facts and Reason" branch of atheism pretends that we would all be driving flying cars in a peaceful utopia if it weren't for pesky religion.
To be fair, a lot of them spread by the sword. Convert or we kill your tribe. Some of them explicitly call out in their texts that it's OK to forcibly convert or murder non-believers, an attribute which is, I'm sure, a helpful "evolutionary gene" for the religion's spread. There are also religions with non-violent, but still coercive conversion, where there are non-death-related social consequences for nonbelievers.
I'm intrigued to understand your definition of "triumphed", as given the rest of the post I'm assuming you're not referring to the genocide of non-believers, which is, of course, precisely how the major religions achieved such longevity.
It doesn't take much of a leap to go from "I am valuable [because G-d says so]", to "I deserve to be equal to my fellow man, free to make my own choices".
> since psychology is the most vague of sciences
But since you make this claim, we can talk about it. So what's your advice? See religious scholars instead of board certified psychologists?
And yes, I used the word wisdom on purpose :)
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence and all that.
How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Nihilism.
Could you recommend some?
People that have gone through horrible circumstances can, and often do, benefit greatly from the moral certainty that religion provides.
Individuals love to look at individual bits of morality in said books in a choose your own adventure exploration. As much as the moral certainty says be nice to others, it will also contain many bits that are highly questionable and would deeply conflict with others views.
In general secular psychologists don't come with the violent historical baggage that religions do.
Who cares? It gets drug addicts clean and criminals reformed.
I'd be curious to see the stats on that.
AA, in particular the serenity prayer, has at least some overlap with the more tech friendly pursuit of Stoic philosophy.
“God, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, courage to change the things I can, and wisdom to know the difference.”
It's a nice quote because it is a bit more interesting than common popular wisdom that exists across humanity and in all religions simply telling you : "Accept what you cannot change"
That is often elided even more by "Accept your situation" or even "Obey" providing great convenience to the powers that be.
It's also very inconsiderate... Addiction generally has much deeper roots than just "craving the high" since it can be maladaptive coping mechanisms people develop due to traumatic childhoods (or later life, but less likely). Eg, substance abuse/addiction is commonly found in people who suffer from CPTSD.
The high isn't "I'm having the time of my life" for these people, but a a way to disconnect and silence their brain demons.
Also, a lot of people don't know they were abused or neglected as children (becaus it's "their normal") and then go through life as struggling with all sorts of internalised shit.
Edit: Also a very important thing I want to put out there: if anyone struggling with addition reads this, addiction isn't something to be ashamed of or to put yourself down over. It might not be your fault. But most addictions are maladaptive, and the sooner resolved the more you will get out of life. Don't be ashamed of yourself, and don't hate yourself for it
I was an alcoholic and now I am not. I don't think it is easy but it is relatively simple. A lot of stuff that is glommed onto recovery from alcoholism obscures the fact that you have to stop using the drug, that is fundamental. Anything that unintentionally encourages relapse is not useful.
For many drinkers, suddenly stopping can be life threatening, causing seizures and convulsions.
I also stopped drinking, effectively cold turkey - but I wasn't a very heavy drinker, just a habitual one. However, I rejected AA as far too prescriptive in its approach.
For anyone reading this who is considering quitting alcohol I recommend r/stopdrinking on reddit, which is an incredibly friendly and supportive place where people practice and discuss a variety of methods.
Surmounting all of this is very much like a lot of difficult tasks - often made more difficult by well-meaning people who want to point out all the difficulties you hadn't considered yet. What we need is more resources like: do you drink this much? Go to this clinic when you quit. Worried? Then quit sooner rather than later when you are drinking even more.
But IMO more often than not, we should't be flippant or dismissive about the excuses (for relapses or for continuing to use).
For some people, maladaptive coping—and all its consequences—is a cheap price to pay compared to facing a sober existence when unequipped to deal with it.
So even if they quit cold-turkey (or just quit), they won't necessarily improve their quality of life because they don't know why they got into addiction in the first place. However, going to support groups can help meet people. Those who struggle with similar root causes of their addiction tend to cluster as well, and that can (indirectly, and with a bit of luck) help identify root causes. That was what happened with me, and I'm forever grateful to support groups.
In my case I was an adult child of narcissistic parents (ACoNs)[1] and I struggled with C-PTSD[2] all my life (I self-misdiagnosed myself many times with depression, autism, younameit) and I'll live with it forever. In a twisted and perverse way, I think drug abuse and addiction—with all the indirect suffering they caused—also saved my life. If it weren't for drugs, literally wouldn't have had any coping mechanism whatsoever. So, in cases like mine quitting cold-turkey means that the withdrawal symptoms just compounded compounded with our emotional dysregulation.
Also I want to finish with this: I am really glad you managed to turn your life around and quit using. I'm happy that you took steps to improve your life, and as cheesy as it sounds: I'm proud of you! Thank you for sharing your story; I know talking about these things isn't easy.
Stay strong!
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narcissistic_parent [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complex_post-traumatic_stress_...
edit: wordsmithing
Going cold turkey and never doing X is the simple solution for any addiction, now get addicted to anything and try that out...
I have been addicted to cigarettes and alcohol. Going cold turkey is essential for getting over the addictions. Never doing them again makes relapse unlikely. These are simple facts. AA says you can't really achieve independence you have to replace it with meetings and prayer. I say you can get over it. And I have experience with people who go back and forth to AA relapsing, and so how will they ever get free?
> Going cold turkey and never drinking again is the simple solution and it doesn't require all the drama
is very impolite to everyone who has ever struggled with any addiction.
- you just need to quit cold turkey, how hard can it possibly be to not do something?
- have you tried focusing?
- you should try making todo lists!
- if you would just sit still and listen, you could do better on your homework!
While I do agree that the parent wasn’t the most polite, comments like yours definitely fall somewhere in the naive-condescending spectrum and I read the parent’s comment as trying to figure which end of that spectrum it came from.
Any advice for an alcoholic that does not include "stop drinking" is not good advice. Every alcohol-related problem stems from the alcohol. It may not be everything needed for their recovery, but it has to be the basis. AA at least gets this right. However, AA paints a picture of addicts as people who are unable to ever get this aspect of their life under control. Unlike non-drinkers, AA alcoholics are always fighting the demon Alcohol. The organization does not believe in full recovery. Sometimes I have read a no-true-Scotsman formulation which says that if you can survive sober without AA, then you were not really an alcoholic. How is this helpful?
I think the proof is really in the pudding. AA has a lot of former members who still do not drink. These are people who quit drinking and eventually found the meetings unhelpful.
I live without fear of relapse. This is because I know that I will never "need" alcohol again.
To address the other side of what you are talking about, I hope that one day I will be able to live properly with ADHD. As of yet, we have not found an approach that generally works. Stimulants are helpful but they are a band-aid on the problem and have side effects. Behavioral therapy is helpful, too, albeit a bit mild in effect. I hope that when a good approach is developed, I will have the sense to try it.
What an incredibly garbage take. Not genetics, having alcoholic family, none of that? You just distill it to that?
Apparently the monks felt a huge urge just to sleep, rest and abandon their study around midday... it was a fairly well recognised psycho-spiritual problem in the middle ages for some monastic orders...
They're interesting inputs for Marginalia's search engine FWIW.
Zoroastrianism may also have something to offer here. Maybe it's time to revive it.
You can find it in humanism, you can find it in secular philosophy, you can get therapy, you can find it in social political communities, it's in many places. You can even get some old bearded dude tell you what to do if that's what you need.
Religion is just one way to have faith.
Meanwhile many modern replacements usually don't have any longevity. Maybe one of them will survive but only time will tell.
The vast majority have staying power because of two primary things. Have children, teach those children your religion. In the days before mass education and when huge numbers of children died in early age making this a memnatic was an important way for societal continuation.
This says nothing about it's continued usefulness after a paradigm shift.
For me the bible is the same as any other (old) book where people write about their life experience. A good example is 'Meditations' by Marcus Aurelius. There is a lot of wisdom in it, and I have read it more than once over the years. It makes you reflect on your own life and decisions you make.
Having spent two years as a missionary in a majority atheist country (the Czech Republic) I'd have to say that wasn't my experience. For most Czechs, it seemed to be more of a general apathy about religion and the idea of God, not any serious skepticism or an active choice not to believe.
Therapy has changed a lot of people around me’s lives for the better. Indisputably. I have seen 20-year alcoholics change virtually overnight when their abusers are finally caught and the addict-victim goes and talks it through with a therapist.
Where I’m going to disagree, though, is that this is a black and white “Christianity or therapy” issue. I’m coming at this pragmatically; I haven’t been to church in almost 20 years now and religion is virtually non-existent in my life. There’s two things, though, with religion in general that can be hugely useful for someone struggling with addiction and/or substance abuse:
- Therapy-like religious guidance. Many denominations of Christianity (and other religions, but I am not particularly familiar with the exact customs) encourage you to share your burdens with either the leadership or broader community.
- Community itself. Beyond the primary “you are destroying your body” issues with addiction, one of the worst secondary effects is the social effects. When you have a substance abuse problem, “ordinary” people will start to distance from you. This can either end up with you just isolating from the world and getting lonelier (amplifying the problem) or seeking community with whoever you can find who won’t reject you (other people with substance abuse problems… amplifying the problem)
Religion can provide these things and while it’s not for me, I have a hard time dismissing it outright. Especially since we have, as society has become more secular, mostly failed at establishing accessible community institutions that provide these things. One of the most interesting things to me is that almost every other community is generally focused around either specific activities (eg a rock climbing gym, martial arts, bird watching, knitting) or specific professions (eg software developer meet-ups). Church is one of the few places in the world that I’m likely to encounter a very broad cross-section of society.
That all being said, quality varies dramatically. There are some churches that are, to me, completely toxic and have strayed far from “bringing light into this world”.
YMMV, but it works for some people and provides exactly what they need to heal.
In university, I dated a Lutheran (in Canada, there's two "sub-Lutheran" organizations, she was a part of the "more welcoming one") and it was a night and day difference. Not to go too far into theology, but these folks were some of the most "Christ-like" folks I have ever met. They really embodied the "be good to each other" concepts and strongly rejected the more evangelical/recruiting position that many churches take; their philosophy was "be good people, treat others kindly, feel free to have a conversation about your religion if someone asks, but don't try to guilt/shame/whatever, just be a good person."
I'm actually surprised this morning to be defending churches somewhat. It's a tragedy: the worst kind of Christians, to me, are also the most prominent and vocal. From my own understanding of the Bible and basic theology, I absolutely agree that many denominations are cult-like and have also lost their way from the teachings they purport to embody.
Meanwhile there's folks like the Lutherans I hung out with who, for lack of a better turn of phrase, are actually bringing light into the world. These folks get painted with the same brush as the... crazies.
I am not religious and personally i think is best to develop this on your own than taking a prepackaged system, but the utility and practicality of having ssmething already done and battle-tested is undeniable.
Just like you don't need to reinvent the wheel and write a complex library on your own when there's one available, sometimes is best to just use a prepackaged beliefs set and moral system to follow.
Many people are even unable to produce that on their own and epd up disparaged, aimless, living their lives without any understanding of right, wrong, good, bad, moral, immoral.
For what religions are and what they do provide, i personally think some branches of buddhism are better, like the Sokka Gakkai International's approach provides.
I don't agree with the sentence that religious scholars are the best psychologists because they only can provide guidance inside what fits this prepackaged framework-for-living they adopted, and in many many cases (i.e. mentall illnesses, deep issues, moral hardship in grey areas, etc) they are unable to effectively help in any significant way.
Good news is that psychology isn't incompatible with religion and both can coexist peacefully, and one can get the best of both worlds wathout thinking one is best; they work in different ways and provide different things, and IMO they aren't directly comparable, as a psychologist cannot help you very well in terms of religion, and a religious scholar cannot help you very well in terms of psychology (except for the thinfs that fit witin the religious framework chosen).
So all in all, i agree that religion as a valid choice and should be part of discourse, as sometimes it can very well be the best course of action.
Just don't agree with throwing blanket statements of what's best or not in a world as plastic and complex as the one we live in.
We have the technology and means to ensure every person on this earth does not go hungry and has a safe place to sleep at night. But humans do human stuff.
You probably pass plenty of homeless in your daily life and never look/think of them again. Yet somehow religion constantly preaches harmony and giving to others. Most religious people I know are inherently greedy and abide by Capitalistic morals and act as such.
I guess I could create a bubble for myself and not care about others at an inherently deep level like most humans on earth do.
What would a religious Scholar/Teachings do for me if I can plainly see that teachings are only followed when convenient or warped to fit my world narrative? What would you suggest?
His conclusion was: Absolute evil does not exist and pain is an instrument of good.
I can't find it online, my source is the documentary "The Genius of George Boole" [1].
Kierkegaard's The Sickness unto Death [2] could be a related reading too. I remember that I enjoyed it in a fun way.
Also a dumb theory of mine is: suffering is the proof that you are still alive.
Why strive for anything? Especially when the very bare minimum for survival is already covered by community.
Overall culture seems to be more and more nihilistic and individualistic after dropping religion. Few people may be doing the right thing and say that we have to care about future generations. But wast majority, looking at their actions, doesn’t care.
I would rather follow a more humanistic path, that we define our own existence, and that we should attempt to minimize our own suffering.
Same for minimising one's suffering. A healthy society requires a lot of sacrifice from individuals, even with today's technology.
Edit: for those asking for specific recommendations. It’s always best to find your own path according to the religion of your parents and environment. However, I can suggest that you investigate Mussar and look up some books in English.
“Musar is a path of contemplative practices and exercises that have evolved over the past thousand years to help an individual soul to pinpoint and then to break through the barriers that surround and obstruct the flow of inner light in our lives. Musar is a treasury of techniques and understandings that offers immensely valuable guidance for the journey of our lives.... The goal of Musar practice is to release the light of holiness that lives within the soul. The roots of all of our thoughts and actions can be traced to the depths of the soul, beyond the reach of the light of consciousness, and so the methods Musar provides include meditations, guided contemplations, exercises and chants that are all intended to penetrate down to the darkness of the subconscious, to bring about change right at the root of our nature.“