”The Nephilim were in the earth in those days and afterwards, the men and heroes of reknown”.

 The Sumarians were on the earth 6000 years before the Egyptians and the Egyptians were here 2000 years before the bible was even written about or thought of in anyones mind therefore the Christianity MYTH does not hold water at all because they believe the earth was created only 6000 years go therefore the dates negate anything that they will tell you or try to make you believe. The Christians do not own the earth and they cannot force you to believe in what is not true in the first place because they were not here at the beginning of time or the creation of the earth. Nothing was here at the biginning of the creation of the earth, so therefore who is this God person anyway because it was not Jesus Christ because Jesus was the SON of God. But God is INVISABLE.
 There is a female mummy that is out there that has been carbon dated to be over 1 Million years old called Lucy therefore humans have been on the earth for over 1 MILLION years not only 6000 years. 

That is great Guest!! create your own eternal consious enetity to support a warped logic system and deny the real one.
Seek and Ye shall find. deny and you will not. Your choice..

Atheism is a religion. And the reason for this is that it is based on an ” undeniable truth ” that god doesn't exist. It is a belief, much like all religions, that cannot be proven or disproved. The closest thing to a Non religion would be Buddhism, in which the belief is a distraction, a crutch. Your misguided comments are just as transparent as a ranting christian, Muslim, or Jew.

At any rate, debating reason and morality will always be difficult until we can agree on the existence (or non-existence) of moral facts, which will open up an entire new can or worms…if there are such a thing as moral facts, we can come to them by reason, but reason can also be used very easily to show that most of the moral facts we take for granted aren't as solid as we like to believe. There's a philosopher whose name I can't recall right now who theorized that there are no moral facts that can be proven, but we've set up a (mostly) functioning system that relies on them anyway–which leads one to all sorts of questions, really. Wish I could remember dude's name…

The problem with the children of Reason, such as logic and the Scientific Process and a whole host of other stuff, is that they can take us to very unreasonable places. The mathematician Goedel and his famous theorems displayed that any complex logical system is not and cannot be both consistent and complete, which means that either logical systems are inherently flawed, or that there are somethings that simply cannot be proven.

Before I continue, I have to say that I'm not completely sure what “reason” refers to in the context of our conversation. I'm assuming that reason encompasses the scientific process, logic, and evidence-based thinking.

As long as we have a goal, a well-defined problem to solve, reason will be applicable. If a morality seeks to reduce the suffering in the world, then reason can create an effective moral system. If, at the base of things, we say that our goal is the replication of our genes, reason creates systems that are similar to the ethics that we share.

But if we do not have reason guiding the process by which we create our ethical systems, what then? What guides us to say that something is wrong and something is right? By what standard can we decide that it is not okay to shoot political dissidents for example?

2. Truth is another of these ill-defined words. I'll suggest that “truth” is an accurate and useful description of the universe. That however, is still a ratio-centric definition. What if I said that reason increases our understanding of the universe, and allows us to predict things within the universe as well? The physical sciences for example, describing the way and the force with which an apple falls.

3. Reason, as long as it is a rigorous combination of logic and scientific process and evidence, does not fall prey to the thoughts and expectations of the masses. Indeed, the scientific process was developed as a safeguard against such manipulation. But I will concede that, as irrational beings, we are often manipulated by reasonable-sounding arguments. Though these things sound like reason however, scientific and reasonable they are not.

4. Whether we want art to be systematic or not, reason is making it so. Art is not intangible. It is not outside the reach of reason. But perhaps it should be. The creative process, the act of producing something beautiful, the act of touching someone's soul, should not be subject to reason. It should not be something that we distill into simple algorithms to be used methodically. But because art is not chaos we can and do distill its processes. There are only so many paradigms to be shattered.

And the same to you Jeffrey. It's nice to talk about more than God's non-existence.

“If god made all religious people's computers non-functional for all time!”

Yep, if we all noticed that there was no more religious crap on the internet ever again, we would have no choice but to believe it had something to do with the divine.

http://vimeo.com/7441291

Lecture titled “The Algorithmic Principle Behind Curiosity and Creativity”

Well done, you two. It's about goddam time.

Regarding point 4, I'm curious about the phrase “We can make predictions about music and expression because we have formed a science around the subjects.”, which neither of you seem to take any issue with–maybe I'm out of the loop (I've also got a BA in philosophy but alas, not one in any scientific field), but although you take notice of capitalists using these sciences (which sciences, can I ask? Not to snark, I'm generally curious) to their advantage, it seems that they are only predicting the direction of the public's taste rather than, as Jeffrey points out, actual novelty and innovation.

The phrase “do as thou wilt” is often used, I've found, by people who haven't actually examined where the phrase comes from or what context in which it was used.

2. “Reason gets us closer to the truth,” only if you are defining “truth” in a ratio-centric way. But some genius guy once said “Beauty is truth and truth beauty.” Can we derive aesthetic experience from reason? Some certainly would point to the elegance of math equations, the visually stunning fractal patterns, the golden ratio, etc. But to see these occasions of natural beauty merely as representations of reason seems a bit reductive.

3. The point of this is that reason is contentious enough, malleable enough, to say just about anything – and the more reasonable you can make something sound the more you will deceive and manipulate even the intelligentsia if they haven't a shred of critical consciousness to accompany their reason. A public thinks they are educated if their rationale is mirrored in the rest of society. But if we're all following each other based on consensus of what is “reasonable,” then how do we know we aren't being manipulated by reason itself?

4. You're point about “predicting” the arts with scientific formulations, and crafting art and culture in such ways is crucial, and you give a nod to that when you refer to how capitalists have used this to their advantage. Do we necessarily want art and music to be predictable based on sets of data? What is the nature of innovation and novelty in that case? The most mediocre artists are always the ones who do everything according to the production formula for success, and the greatest artists are the ones who break the mold and give us something totally unpredictable and paradigm shattering.

6. There are other arguments that show the internal irrationality of reason. Parmenides, for example.

Ian, thanks for an intelligent response! Very refreshing…

I'm not against reason per se, but I've been trying to voice an opposing viewpoint to the atheists' glorification of reason uber alles.

Behind my defense of religious traditions and mystical paths (and the overall mystical view of life, of which reason is only a fraction) I have in mind mostly the more esoteric and body-mind oriented paths such as Tantra, Buddhism, Alchemy, Saivism – all of which can be said to hold religious and mystical attributes, and which arguably go deeper than any secular Humanist or otherwise rational psychology can to address the problems of suffering, of projecting illusion, of self-deceit, etc., with the goal of bringing about inner tranquility and perhaps even to cultivate the wisdom and compassion to help lead others to their own psychic liberation.

I graduated from a B.A. Philosophy program recently, so I am versed well enough in reason to have some distaste for it. As I mentioned in earlier posts, some of the philosophers I appreciated most were those who went to great lengths to condemn paths of “progress” that were guided by the purported objectivity of reason. I mentioned Theodor Adorno and Max Horkheimer, Herbert Marcuse (the Frankfurt School), but Martin Heidegger is also a key figure (and Marcuse's teacher) who warned against the trappings of reason, as he put it, seeing the world as “standing reserve,” as material resources always already for utility – in other words, never being in the world for itself or seeing it for its spontaneous “presencing.”

2. I agree with your second point to some degree. Reasoning is too time consuming for most of our day to day activities. We evolved a system of shortcuts and behavioral scripts that allow reason, a time consuming process, to be used only sparingly. But this does not discount the fact that reason gets us closer to the truth than emotional responses.

3. Your third point is an argument against politicians, not against reason. We all know that the power-hungry lie. The answer to this is an educated public. An educated public implies a reasonable public.

4. Perhaps reason is not all encompassing. But simply because art and beauty and creativity are not products of rationality does not mean that reason is any less formidable. And besides, reason is beginning to dissect even the arts. We can make predictions about music and expression because we have formed a science around the subjects. Reason aids in the creative processes as well. Of course, the scientific deconstruction of art has led to capitalistic exploitation of the artist's elements, but that is an argument for another time.

5. see 2.

6. Penrose wasn't arguing against reason in his video. He was saying that in mathematics, one must consider two contradictory ideas at the same time. on the face of it, this may seem unreasonable, but I don't think you would consider it a legitimate argument against reason.

7. Scientism is just another faith. That was Midgely's real argument! Reason on the other hand, seemed pretty well untouched by her arguments. but to be sure, unconditional reliance on reason would get us all killed; just look at point two.

The cold calculation of Fascism was not a direct result of reason, but instead a result of the deeper vices that all humans seem to share. Eugenics might have had its toes in reason, but the real problem was that the “best and brightest” breeders were chosen on a subjective basis.

It seems to me that religion, at least most western religion–I know very little about eastern religion–is as much a vehicle for capitalistic self-serving as the next institution. Perhaps it began as a method to disperse ethical content, a proposed system to transcend the greed innate in humanity. However, it appears that time has corrupted the systems of religion just as time has corrupted our dual-federalist state.

Much more interesting though is the dogmatism you have exposed in the atheists on this site, and likely, atheists in general. I think that it is the dogmatism within religion that most repulses me, but apparently it is not unique to the God-fearing.

Profit motive is a form of psychosis characterized by gain and greed as one's sole purpose for existence. It is the reason that capitalism destroys the integrity of everything it touches. Take the current global economy for instance – it is crumbling because it has lost its integrity due to the abstract number crunching and speculative investment of a finance-oriented economy that doesn't produce anything tangible except for stupid fat rich assholes.

If you understood anything about the context in which religions arise, then you might be able to begin to say something – but you demonstrate time and again that you are only a dolt with a keyboard and too much access to communication's technology so that other people actually have to be exposed your rhetorical fart storm.

If you ever wanted to make a serious scholarly into religion, Islam would actually be an excellent place to start. Islam arose out of a context where Arabic nomadic people were transitioning to a more sedentary lifestyle where suddenly everyone had to learn how to get along with each other and not just be totally cutthroat crazy nomads all the time. Muhammad the Profit worked to change people's ideas of what is acceptable and ethical, and promoted religious and social change that was communal, cooperative and, for its time, very progressive.

If religious mania is good for anything it'd be whipping people into a frenzy enough to throw one more big, violent revolution and shake those capitalist whores down to their knees once and for all.

“those causes” you list ARE religion.

“show me the money” and i'll show you either a religious person or
someone cashing in on or manipulating them for their gullability.

you wanna convince others who read this? i'm sorry.. most people have
made up their mind (unless they happen to be agnostic)..

all those things you listed are rhetoric. i don't expect to convince
or change anyone.. all i'm doing is saying there's an equal opposite
to EVERYTHING i've ever heard or read from ANY religion.

if you've never experienced that opposite (the BAD SIDE of religions)
then perhaps you just can never understand that. Most of those
“transformations” you mention are people trying to gain interpersonal
or social acceptance, or trying to get out of some sort of trouble and
having to convince a religious representative that they are
trustworthy. That in itself is the essence of the social problem we
call “religion”.

The keys to wealth and power and freedom have been stolen by religions
time and time again – then buried in corporate conglomerations under
control of the religion opressor. You might convince someone needing
companionship – but you won't convince anyone who KNOWS BETTER and
that's called ATHEISM.

religion is more offensive and repulsive than anything the religious
people get banned from television – or books. and athiests are more
tolerant because you don't see us constantly imposing our beliefs on
you by manipulating courts and governments and social institutions and
language and music and art.

i resisted my urge to just say “get fucked wanker”, so if anything i
said doesn't translate well for you, the last quotation should
suffice. (grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr)

I'd say the vast majority of wars, abuse, manipulation and exploitation have their causes in the control of materials/resources by ownership, private property and capitalist interests, which in turn have their own deeper root causes in human neurosis, psychosis, ignorance, confusion and folly. Certain religions or paths or mystical teachings, I'm thinking Buddhism especially here (which is a religion with a path and mystical teachings), have the uprooting of those causes as their main focus. Mysticism and religion seek to transform people from base, crude, cunning and deceiving, greedy and gluttonous and irreverent schmucks, into empathic, compassionate, generous, cooperative, selfless and benevolent deities of wisdom. I know that none of this jives with your preferred vocab, but at least it may get through to whoever else may read it.

don't worry.. one day you might realize you were wrong (as most religious believers find out when they die and their life is rewritten and assets stolen by their church to perpetuate the ongoing deception.

did you know that the catholics can cure cancer now? Sinead O'Conner may have been wrong to say the pope is the antichrist – because any antichrist that comes along would be a happy, fair and open-minded person and get my vote.

deprogram thine self

Fin.