I was thinking today and I seemed to have thoughtof something really interesting. It's probably the best, most doubt-weakening example of the existence of God that I might have thought up yet. So that's why it's interesting.

Let's say you're looking in an art gallery and you stop at a painting and look at it. It's really detailed and pretty. Most likely, becuase of such awesome quality that would be hard not to acknowledge, it wouldn't fail to evoke a certain quality in you, right? Well perhaps religion is seen in the same way. People experience a rock as more than a rock, it's acknowledged as a part of a world created by a great supreme source. To some though, it's just matter with nothing else. And it's in that way also similar to the art. Like an atheist who looks at a rock as literal matter, an uncultured person who doesn't know anything about art would see the painting as just colors and shapes, not acknowledging any value in it. Or non-abstract art thinkers, like a lot of us probably are, we see the abstract art just superficially, just like non-theists see life for what it literally feels like. So assuming we're all cultured people who have critiqued some kind of art, we can see how an uncultured person is definitely missing the view of understanding value. And since it's like understanding value in art, us non-believers can see through a familiar feeling how we could be missing the understanding of the value, too. Did we loose it along the way? Could I actually be experiencing things wrong because I haven't been realizing to interpret it with that value. It makes me wonder if there really is some interpretive value that I'm missing but that I still have in interpreting art. So...am I making sense and all? Is it as reasonable as I seem to think it is? Any feedback from either side's own feelings?

And just out of curiousity for the other non-theists out there, what would you say, if any, seems like the closest reasoning that you've had to feeling some possibility of the existence of a supreme being?
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
03-24-05, 07:32 PM
frankvan
I don't think that the way one looks at one's surroundings necessarily results in the growth of belief in a supreme being or a loss of skepticism, as you seem to suggest. If one looks at a rock, to use your example, and sees something more than a simple rock, it may well be that the more philosophical person contemplates the mysterious force that produced the rock and placed it in its present location, whereas I might well ponder its composiion of molecules and atoms, electrons, protons, etc.

I believe thatr because most of us come in contact with supreme being concepts very early in childhood, we grow up with expectations of being observed by a judgemental power capable of inflicting terrible punishments for infractions of the rules of the game. If our parents belonged to a Catholic church and we were taught to attentd mass make communion and confess our sins, etc. all of the scientific learning we may acquire in later years may well make it impossible to escape the nagging fear of the guilt associated with doubt.. Inhibitions instilled in young children are not easily exorcised. One needs to have the courage to entertain any doubts that education produces, to go wherever the evidence leads, regardless of any preconceived a priori beliefs held.

I consider myself atheist or agnostic but not because I think the label one attaches to onesself or others is important, but simply because it serves as a shorthand in conversation or discussion. I dont believe in God any more than I disbelieve in God. I consider it unimportant and meaningless. There is ample unexplored territory in the world and the universe to occupy one's attention or study for several lifetimes. Why waste time and energy worrying about the mysteries we are nowhere close to solving while neglecting the tangible problems that we might yet untangle? If there is in fact a God of some sort hiding in the shadows, I couldn't possibly believe that he/she/it could be any more vengeful, jealous, or narrow-minded than myself. So why worry? As Omar Khayam said:
Some for the pleasures of this world and some
Long for the prophet's paradise to come
Ah, take the cash and let the credit go
Nor heed the rumble of some distant drum

03-24-05, 08:44 PM
DvdGStwrt
Jursork;

You have keyed into it rather well.

03-24-05, 09:55 PM
jusork

quote:
Originally posted by frankvan:
I don't think that the way one looks at one's surroundings necessarily results in the growth of belief in a supreme being or a loss of skepticism, as you seem to suggest. If one looks at a rock, to use your example, and sees something more than a simple rock, it may well be that the more philosophical person contemplates the mysterious force that produced the rock and placed it in its present location, whereas I might well ponder its composiion of molecules and atoms, electrons, protons, etc.

I consider myself atheist or agnostic but not because I think the label one attaches to onesself or others is important, but simply because it serves as a shorthand in conversation or discussion. I dont believe in God any more than I disbelieve in God. I consider it unimportant and meaningless. There is ample unexplored territory in the world and the universe to occupy one's attention or study for several lifetimes. Why waste time and energy worrying about the mysteries we are nowhere close to solving while neglecting the tangible problems that we might yet untangle? If there is in fact a God of some sort hiding in the shadows, I couldn't possibly believe that he/she/it could be any more vengeful, jealous, or



Yeah, what I mean is the person who contemplates the mysterious force and all is seeing a cetain level that would be necessary in understanding God. Just like the level in the experience of an evocative painting or song. And you're not going to experience the higher value of the painting by seeing it literal, in it's superficial composition. Yet we don't have that sense of finding value, for some reason, for God. Am I still not making sense?

And it's only a meaningless feeling because we're atheists, no? I mean there are people who have actually found that. Right?

Hey, thanks, David. Good to hear. You did a nice job keying in my name as well. Wink

03-25-05, 06:23 AM
tsaeb
Jusork: Bear this in mind in your journey to greater spiritual development. There are two things which the Bible mentions as causing people to perish: lack of a vision, and lack of knowledge.

Additionally, I think that God is now doing these two things in your life. He is focusing your eyes on visible sights with the thought that not everyone sees things for their true worth so that you can contemplate visions at all even with more appreciation--visions being, after all, mental images. Also, He is putting the thought in your head that not everyone sees that visible sights have value at all so that you can begin to make the leap into thinking that some thoughts (as of God and whoever and whatever He has to offer) are valuable at all even more value than others.

God has His ways of drawing near to those who seek Him. Yes, He can be found within as soon as one realizes that what is of the most value in your heart and mind is God--as love in your new soul (old heart) and as the Holy Spirit in your new spirit (old mind), although the soul and spirit (like the heart and mind, respectively) are inseparable except philosophically. Go with the love in your soul and with the Holy Spirit in your spirit: God is the way, the truth, and the life.

03-25-05, 10:10 AM
frankvan
Jusork, I believe that I can identify with you about the ability to see something other than canvas and assorted pigments in a painting. I feel very moved by words of a poem or lyrics of a song. But I don't think this has anything to do with awakening sprituality. I think it has more to do with subconscious bits of emotional response to pleasant (or disturbing) memories. And, if some of those fragments of memory happen to include remnants of early religious teachings we may be prone to attach unwarrented signifigance to them. We are, indeed constantly seeking answers to the many mysteries of life, but I would be wary of the temptation to think we have found them. Especially, to have found them all in one fell swoop. Every answer produces new questions. When you find the universal solvent - you have to find a suitable container. Wink

03-25-05, 11:15 AM
aminator2002
Anything of awesome beauty especially if it is a natural creation such as a mountain or a gorgeous rock formation will cause a person to wonder about this world. Whether that person makes elaborate connections to the system of natural forces that we find ourselves in or simply says "I know my God did this" there is a question in their head of what this world is. I believe that people mistake people who say they accept a particular god or religion as being spiritual. I have met many religious people who are not very spiritual in the sense of having awe and wonder for this world. I have met many atheists who have a great appreciation for beauty and natural wonders. That people aren't able to say that they know the answers to the question of who god is or how we ended up on this rock does not correlate to whether or not they have an appreciation for beautiful things or quality.

03-25-05, 01:18 PM
jusork
Tsaeb, and how do you know that? What's hard is, not only does the realization seem close to impossible from the perspective that I'm viewing it in right now, but I have absolutely no conception of this realization like I do for art. All I know is that there's this parallel that I know well but I can't conceive how my experience should be the same for both.

Frank, I think you might be misunderstanding. I don't mean that you are spiritually awkened through art. It's just the parallel that opens that idea up so much. Is that what you misunderstood? Of course I don't have any understanding of the spiritual to go any further, but that's what's still helping me stay skeptical.

Ami, yet the atheist still sees the world literally while the religious still sees it with some other understanding, right? And I'm definitely not saying that non-theists lack an appreciative understanding of art like they do for some other understanding of spirituality. That's what's different and what would prompt the confusion in any cultured non-theist; that we have the understanding for art, but not for spirituality.

And thanks everyone for providing additional thoughts for me.

03-25-05, 03:28 PM
aminator2002
"Ami, yet the atheist still sees the world literally while the religious still sees it with some other understanding, right?"

I do not think that atheists necessarily see the world in a more literal sense than a theist. I think that perhaps a definition of spirituality is in order.

Spirituality pertains to interest in the spirit which is synonomous for life. An theist or an atheist alike may be spiritual, but an atheist does not believe in a superior being or any force at the controls of the lives. An agnostic is simply unaware of any way to be sure either way about whether or not there is a superior being/ creator or anything of that sort.

We can all, regardless of our religion, be spiritual in the sense that we look at the world without full understanding and appreciate the wonder of things on this Earth. In a religious person there may be some background that attempts to explain things (which are actually unknowable.) In a non religious person there is no difference except that they do not agree that there is explanation and have not adopted the existing explanations that exist through religions.

Any person regardless of religion or spiritual outlook can appreciate the wonder of a new born baby or a powerful storm. No matter how much you know about what causes storms or why they occur, the way we look at a storm is no more "literal" as it pertains to religion affliation.

03-25-05, 05:09 PM
Professor

quote:
(Jusork wrote: ) ...us non-believers can see through a familiar feeling how we could be missing the understanding of the value, too.

I guess others have already pointed out the distinction between spirituality and religion. Knowledge and contemplation usually enhance, not diminish, our appreciation of the world.

quote:
What men are poets who can speak of Jupiter if he were a man, but if he is an immense spinning sphere of methane and ammonia must be silent.

--Richard Feynman

03-25-05, 06:32 PM
jusork
Yeah, they still have a form of appreciation, but the atheist who appreciates the new born baby is still missing that higher appreciation that theists get from it, no?

I thought of a counter-argument earlier today that actually seems to put this reasoning more in doubt. It's possible for art to be just plain meaningless, whether the artist didn't have any intentions or people are adding stuff to nothing or whatever, so, using the same parallel, you could see the people adding a quality that isn't there to the world as well I guess.

Hmmm, interesting quote, Prof.

03-26-05, 08:45 PM
aminator2002
Well jusork, I guess the answer is kind of complicated because you are assuming that someone who adopts a world view including god or a religious view has some sort of understanding. A lot of people would argue that it is actually getting in the way of understanding. If you are given the answer to a question and you believe it to be true, but it is in fact false then you have lost. When you are raised in a religion that offers all sorts of answers to the mysteries of the world and also tells you that if you deny those "truths" that you are astray and against your religion. The argument could be made that you have less potential to keep asking the questions and seeing if there are in fact other answers. This search can fulfill the soul of humans just as a deep religious understanding can. Fulfillment can come in the form of the search and the acknowledgement that we will never know or that existing religions are inadequate to bring understanding or also for the theists in the form of peace with their beliefs and their understanding of the world through a connection to religious beliefs.

03-26-05, 09:17 PM
Sarai
Jusork-

It sounds like you and I are the same spiritual (or non-spiritual?) page these days.

I can't add much but will write a lot anyway. Smile

Personally, I think all religion IS a form of art. I've always felt that way - even in my die-hard atheist days. Religious services, myths, rituals, traditions, language and music are all quite beautiful and describe the world in a way that I think is a form of art. There is painting, film, literature, music etc. and religion belongs on that list.

I think Animator makes a good point, too. Not everyone who is religious sees the art - and not everyone who is atheist is missing it. There are people who are religious the way some people listen to music - they just bob along because that's what people do, listening to the radio if it happens to be on and that's that. Then there are people who happen to be atheists, but maybe they are getting a sense of spirituality some other way - say through music or hiking or helping others. Then there are people who are spiritual the way some other people listen to music- as if their life depends on it.

Then there is the person who commits suicide or starts using dangerous drugs or joins a gang or some other grave error because he takes a song on the wrong level of truth. But nothing strikes me as more wrong of a response to such incidences than an overall condemnation of music or of the sort of music that misguided person was listening to. Just because some people took art the wrong way doesn't mean the art itself is false or bad or dangerous.

Perhaps religion is true in the same way that art is true. No one will tell you that Hamlet really happened or that a hard rain's REALLY gonna fall, but neither Hamlet nor A Hard Rain's A-Gonna Fall are false lies, either.

The difficulty, of course, is discussing what truth is when we start thinking about what art actually means. Personally, most of my favorite works of art are things I think are totally destroyed when people start to explicate them in scholarly, critical language. If what a poem says could be said better or more clearly in literal prose, poetry wouldn't exist. So perhaps the same is true with religion.

Although, after writing all that, I can't help thinking that some very compelling (and for me, important) questions that religions raise, such as "Is there life after death?" are very literal questions, and the answer must be either factual or metaphorical. A metaphorical life after death is far different, in my opinion, than a literal one, and the distinction is important. That, I guess, is why religion is distinct from art in one important way. At some point, we have to decide what level of truth it holds.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Sarai, 03-26-05 09:48 PM

03-26-05, 09:58 PM
jusork
Ok, I think I see what you're saying, Ami. You're saying that the meaning is not in asking questions? That makes sense I guess, but there still has to be something in the end, whether it all ultimately means nothing or that there is something else or neither really truly know and it's hopeless to search for one. I'm just speaking from the standpoint that there really is, but we're missing to see its great, undeniable truth.

Are we really, Sarai? Neat! I suppose religion is a form of art in a way. The Bible is like a storybook of it all, etc. But a religious person would probably see it as something else, right? Their religion is more than just the culture and thought.

Yeah, there are some believers who are more, I guess, superficial in it, but that wouldn't change any truth in the belief. Just the person's value in the belief.

Yeah, that's example of going over over the level is what I was kind of saying in my counter-argument. Maybe my metaphor is wrong and it should be shifted so seeing a great scheme in the world is like devoting your life to music. Both could simply just be going overboard instead of finding and seeing something at a "higher level" than us.

Hmmm, I guess that's possible. Following a belief even if you realize it could easily be false or is false. Although I don't really know anyone who believes in a certain way of seeing things just because they like it or think it's interesting. Eh?

That last paragraph is right on, Sarai. We seem to definitley be on the same wavelength now.

03-26-05, 10:44 PM
aminator2002
"Is religion art" might make an interesting discussion. I don't think it is, but I am finding it a bit difficult to argue.

Art and religion are both constructed by humans, both are created with the intent to share/enrich the human experience, both straddle the realm of physical and metaphysical (i.e. churches versus ritual versus Bible) and both leave ambiguity and different impressions on individuals. You can take what you will from both art and religion... and discussions of truth in either are impossible.

Clearly they are different though. I see religion as a guidebook, a way of seeing the world, a safety net, a security blanket and many other things that art can not be. I think there is no way to explain adequately why you like a piece of art and there is no way to explain your religious beliefs. You can start but there will always be some concept that can't be expressed.

03-26-05, 10:49 PM
jusork
I agree!

You can definitely get pretty close in understand how other people feel. If you say you like a song, a lot of people will be able to see what it is you like, even if they don't like it. The same for religion apparently. But yeah, you of course can't fully experienece the other's full feeling of it.

03-31-05, 02:48 PM
jusork
Ok, I've been thinking about some more ideas working off this subject.

I've been wondering that if truth is this ultimate force, wouldn't this make it perfect? Would the ultimate truth be wholy and completely everything? It'd be omnipresent and so true that it'd be undeniably apparent, no? What is faith even for? Is there anyway that we can't know something about it? Why or how would we doubt or misunderstand something absolutely true? You'd think that, as humans, our minds could never conceive of something perfect. Yet, actually, we would have absolutely no problem in understanding it. Then I started wondering that if it were omnipresent and impossible to not understand, we would actually have ultimate understanding ourselves.

04-01-05, 09:51 PM
tsaeb
In the Bible, there is a gate called Beautiful, and the Holy Spirit is also called the Spirit of Truth.

04-01-05, 11:00 PM
jusork
I think I'm lost. What are you trying to point out, Tsaeb?

04-02-05, 12:39 PM
tsaeb
Either you can get a Concordance on the Bible and look up "beautiful" and "spirit of truth," or another participant might get an inspiration on these two biblical references to associate what you said about beauty and truth with what the Bible says about beauty and truth. Actually, the Bible says a lot more on beauty and truth. So you may want to get that Concordance and look up "beauty" and "truth." You could peek in such a Concordance in a bookstore which sells religious or specifically Christian books. That would be an experience, visiting such a bookstore, wouldn't it?

04-02-05, 02:28 PM
frankvan
Woah! Becoming just a little less skeptical?
'Beauty is truth, truth beauty,—that is all
Ye know on earth, and all ye need to know.'



from: Ode on a Grecian Urn Keats.

04-02-05, 06:52 PM
Sarai

quote:
Originally posted by jusork:
Ok, I've been thinking about some more ideas working off this subject.

I've been wondering that if truth is this ultimate force, wouldn't this make it perfect? Would the ultimate truth be wholy and completely everything? It'd be omnipresent and so true that it'd be undeniably apparent, no?



I'm not so sure. Apparently, for example, Einstein's theories are true. But if you ask me, trying to wrap my mind around his theories is really difficult. And certainly, much of what he discovered is counterintuitive - certainly not "undeniably apparent." For example, the fact that time slows down when we speed up, or that matter is sort of a converted form of energy, or that nothing can exceed the speed of light - none of these things are readily apparent, at least not to me.

quote:
You'd think that, as humans, our minds could never conceive of something perfect. Yet, actually, we would have absolutely no problem in understanding it.



What is this perfection that you can conceive of? Personally, I don't know what "perfection" means. Can you describe what is perfect?

Frank- Is the truth really always so beautiful? I can think of several very ugly truths.

04-02-05, 07:14 PM
frankvan

quote:
Frank- Is the truth really always so beautiful? I can think of several very ugly truths.



So can I. It's just that Tsaeb's reference to the bible and what it has to say about 'truth' and 'beauty' reminded me of the line from Keats' Ode on a Grecian Urn. In an odd way I very often 'feel' that I know what the poet is talking about, even though it doesn't really yield to analysis and dissection. Maybe war is more LIE than TRUTH ?? Confused

04-02-05, 07:36 PM
Sarai
Hmm. Gandhi would say that war is wrong because it doesn't lead people toward truth. However, war, obviously, is a truth- so I would say that Gandhi(and Keats) are talking about a different kind of truth. Unfortunately, I don't think that kind of truth is, as Jusork asks, readily apparent.

04-02-05, 09:06 PM
jusork

quote:
Originally posted by tsaeb:
That would be an experience, visiting such a bookstore, wouldn't it?



It would be indeed.

Ah, sorry, Sarai. I should say that I was specifically speaking about religious truth.

By perfect, I mean the ultimate truth. An ultimate truth would be perfect, right?

Do those make sense now?

The problem is that you're thinking like a poet, Frank. Thoughts that only make you think, not know (not that there's anything wrong with not knowing Wink ). Keats seems to be basically saying that truth is matter. But as a poet, he makes a reference to our sense of beauty to say that.

04-03-05, 10:16 AM
aminator2002
jusork,

It seems to me that at any given point in time, you can decide that you know the truth. You can decide "Yes, this is what I've been searching for" and decide that the Christian faith is truth, the Muslim faith is truth or whatever faith... Taoist would be interesting. The problem that you're having is that as a grown person you don't know that any of these are truth. You have no faith. Faith is what you are seeking not truth. I do not believe that anyone on this Earth can know the truth and therefore I am in your same camp, BUT I am not actively seeking the "truth" or my faith.

I do not think people who have faith are liars. I believe very strongly that they believe that they do know exactly what their world is, what the truth of it is and how they should live their lives based on that world view. Unless they decide to inflict their world view on me, or start wars based on their righteousness I have no problem with them.

But it doesn't change the fact that if you are seeking the truth then you will never find it looking to religion or science. You're going to have to look into yourself and see what it is that you know. You know that there are reactions to good and bad in this world that come from inside you... since you have a front row seat to these emotions and feelings, you can know that they are the truth. There must be something that makes things good and bad, beautiful and ugly, horrific and amazing... but you won't find it in books until you feel good about your own compass, yourself.

I don't think there are any ultimate truths, but I certainly feel that I am a good judge of something that is real, true and beautiful. Something beautiful can fill up your spirit even if you aren't sure who your God is or if there is even a God.

04-03-05, 10:21 AM
aminator2002
Wars are not lies, but Ghandi showed that there is another way and that is where beauty comes into play.

Overthrowing a government without military battles is definitely a beautiful thing.

04-03-05, 12:27 PM
jusork
Yeah, all that seems reasonable. I'm not really looking for truth or trying to say with certainty where it is though. As far as I know, I've found it because, as you say, I feel that I am good judge of truth and beauty. Happiness and satisfaction are what I live for and that's pretty much what you and poets and such call beauty.

But still talking about the religious ultimate truth. That if it's perfect, it would seem that I'd have no choice but to understand it and not even think of denying it. Or is human understanding actually so limited and flawed, in some way, that it can't even fully concieve of something perfectly true.

04-03-05, 07:21 PM
frankvan
Jusork, I wonder if this ultimate truth isn't like a mathematical asymptote. Something we can approach closer and closer forever without ever reaching it. My personal opinion is that everyone who is convinced they have reached it are wrong, because they stop looking. I think there are far too many truths, and too many conflicting and contradicting ones for me to ever feel that I've arrived. Like Socrates, I at least know that I don't know, and that satisfies me. I'll enjoy the piecemeal discovery as long as I can keep looking. Wink

04-03-05, 08:59 PM
jusork
Yeah, that's a good point. Maybe we never will really know if we've truly reached anything (assuming that truth isn't undeniable I guess). And it doesn't mean you could never reach it though, unlike the asymptote.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: DorianGreyed,

Yeah, that's a good point. Maybe we never will really know if we've truly reached anything (assuming that truth isn't undeniable I guess). And it doesn't mean you could never reach it though, unlike the asymptote.