Evidence for God

[veinglory]

Team science just think that taking power psychoactive drugs to try and find God is possibly not a brilliant idea.

[AMCrenshaw]

I'm not condoning it, myself. But I would point out it worked for Alan Watts and Ram Dass.

[Ruv Draba]

Gotta love this debate, team science thinks team god needs a lawyer.Actually, I don't much care about your liability; I just thought you would (and it seems I was right). What I care about personally is the impact of bad advice on vulnerable people. That was a part that from your commentary, you and Bigb may have missed.

There's a values question hiding under here, and I think it's been hiding there all along: scientists hate giving people bad advice. That's really why they go through all the ceremony of clinical controls, double blind testing, peer reviews. When you made the implicit jump from 'good for me' to 'good for everyone', without ever asking why you believe that, it qualified you to cheer for team science, Diana, but not to bat for them.

But perhaps underneath the values question is a mind-function question, and it's this...

One of the first things you have to do as a scientist is clobber your emotions: literally, set them aside and let them play no part in your thinking. It doesn't mean that you don't have feelings, but it does mean you keep them locked in a cupboard, and any time they bust out you have to stop what you're doing and put them back.

That's not something everyone can do, or wants to. But some are quite good at it -- indeed they may have learned to do it before they learned to be scientists. Such people often flock to science as a job, since it rewards them for doing what they naturally do anyway.

There's no emotional validation of scientific truth. Scientists quickly learn that the more emotion there is in their thinking, the less likely their thought is to be validated. So their thinking becomes very detached from themselves... it's thought that one scientist can put down and another can pick up almost seamlessly.

Fiction-writers and poets can't really do that. If I half-write a novel and hand it over, another author can complete it but they won't complete the thing I started. They'll simply be writing their own thing over the top of my thing.

In science though, that's exactly what will happen. One scientist will start an investigation, and another will complete it. There's very little of an individual scientist in the science. If Einstein hadn't proposed Special Relativity, Neils Bohr probably would have, and it'd have been exactly the same formula. Einstein himself acknowledged this. When Newton was developing calculus, so was Leibnitz. Different notation, but exactly the same ideas.

If we set our emotions aside (and if you can't do this, you'll have to take it on faith that some folk can), then all we have in common is shared observations. We quickly learn which observations are shareable and which are not (e.g. Bartholomew's colour-blindness). The shareable ones aren't simply practical... they exist independently of our own lives. This is why one scientist can die with her work incomplete, and another can pick up the same work twenty years later.

We live in an objective world, and the world itself tells us its truths -- not from how we feel, but from what we see when our feelings are locked in a cupboard.

[AMCrenshaw]

you keep them locked in a cupboard, and any time they bust out you have to stop what you're doing and put them back.

How do you do that?



AMC

[bigb]

I would like to take this time to apologize. I didn't realize this was the scientific evidence of god thread.

I've always taken personal experience very seriously, and found it to be credible in most aspects of my life including but not limited too, business, friendships, social situations, and whether or not to worship.

Now that I know that the evidence presented here needs to be peer reviewed, have no emotional attachment or enthusiasm, double blind tested and done in a cotrolled environment I realize that I am not qualified to be post here.

I don't bat for team god or team science, and as I said in my first post on the subject, I don't believe in any god, of any kind. This doesn't make me a scientist or an athiest, just some random guy who hasn't seen anything to convince him otherwise.

If i would have known the scientific requirements for my post to be considered, responsible and of value, I would have never bothered to talk about my LSD experience. After all it's only some random guys personal experince and of no scientific value.

Maybe an evidence of god thread will start where personal experince will considered valueble.

Since science and religion haven't given us anything of value to the existence of god, personal experience may actually be useful.

[Bartholomew]

Why are God and Science on different teams, again? God is an entity, and Science is a method of untangling experiences into measurable data.

[bigb]

I have no idea, cause I'm not a team player.

But love your anteater pic (if that is an anteater, love it either way)

[Ruv Draba]

How do you do that?I assume that's a serious question, AMC. Here's a serious, if personal answer.

If we feel too good or too happy or too right or too sure or too cranky or too knowledgable, or too certain of something that hasn't been independently tested, or too smug, or too important, or desperate to find an answer, or too bored or too... anything... I think we have to stop and ask 'what am I overlooking?' 'how wrong might I be right now?' 'how might I find evidence of that?' Then we hunt relentlessly until we find evidence of an error or an oversight and/or some explanation as to why our emotions were ruling us.

Doing this doesn't mean that one doesn't get emotional at inopportune times, or that one won't hold to untenable or ill-justified positions. But it helps ensure that if we could notice it and deal with it on the basis of self-knowledge and past experience, we have opportunity to do so. Speaking personally, stopping whenever my emotions felt too strong (once I decided to do that) made a huge difference to the quality of my scientific output.

[Ruv Draba]

Maybe an evidence of god thread will start where personal experince will considered valueble.I think that personal stories are valuable, Bigb. I've previously respected Diana's and would certainly respect yours.

I haven't seen your story yet though. Just advice and sweeping opinion.

[Ruv Draba]

Why are God and Science on different teams, again? God is an entity, and Science is a method of untangling experiences into measurable data.Team mislabelling. 'Team science' may be a fair label, but I don't believe that the other team is 'team god' or that they're a single team, or that the real 'team god' (i.e. all its members) are entirely incompatible with science, or that most consider taking psychotropics to be anything but dangerous (you'd think that if there were a god who endorsed psychotropics, more of the faithful would take them.)

[bigb]

or that most consider taking psychotropics to be anything but dangerous (you'd think that if there were a god who endorsed psychotropics, more of the faithful would take them.)

I must be really late to this barbaque, looked through several pages and haven't found this statement even implied.

Ruv,
I have no personal stories, I could make some up but it's hard enough to write fiction.
i do have experience, which, tend to be more reliable than stories, and it's simple. I don't believe in god, but because of an experience with a psychotropic don't believe an argument exist for either side.

I don't mean any disrespect, but the Buddha figure out objective and subjective thinking 2500 years ago.

I'm pretty cash and carry, so I thought evidence of god was just that.

[Ruv Draba]

I must be really late to this barbaque, looked through several pages and haven't found this statement even implied.
It's an implication of Diana's suggestion that if atheists took drugs, they'd discover God. My thinking is that if that were true, or even if most religious people thought it were true, they'd be licking a lot more toads and blotting paper than they presently are.

It also goes to a multi-page discussion about what evidence is.

My position is that evidence is not just any experience we have. It's the repeatable experiences that anyone can have. Especially, its those experiences viewed skeptically (i.e. without pre-conviction).

I have an etymological reason for this position, to do with what its original Latin root 'evidentia' actually means, which is consistent with the way it's used in science and business and courtrooms these days...

evidence (n.) (http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=evidence) http://www.etymonline.com/graphics/dictionary.gif (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=evidence)c.1300, "appearance from which inferences may be drawn," from Fr. évidence, from L.L. evidentia "proof," originally "distinction," from L. evidentem (see evident (http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=evident)). Meaning "ground for belief" is from late 14c., that of "obviousness" is 1660s. Legal senses are from c.1500, when it began to oust witness. As a verb, from c.1600. Related: Evidenced; evidencing.(You can see that the meaning has slipped in common usage from 'supporting proof' to 'grounds for belief', which are quite different things. I think the word has lost value somewhat because of that.)

I also have some epistomological reasons associated with what I think knowledge and truth ought to mean, but I won't pursue those here.

I realise that people also make judgements based on unportable personal experiences, and experiences interpreted with pre-conviction. I do this myself at times too, but I don't consider it to be evidence, though I realise that a lot of people do.

So why does it matter?

One reason I think it matters is the ethics of giving advice to others. Let's say that I'm a priest. I may have religious reasons to believe that you shouldn't undertake a certain medical procedure. Those reasons may be based on my holy scriptures, my personal pre-convictions and some personal revelations I had while undertaking a long, prayer-filled religious fast.

Unfortunately, none of that is evidence under my definition. The scriptures aren't because evidence is experiences viewed skeptically. My personal pre-convictions aren't -- they simply influence how I see my own experiences. Lastly, any hallucinations I had while fasting aren't even portable experiences, so I can't use those either. So ethically, if that's all I've got then I shouldn't try and advise you.

But if I've been reading independent clinical trials (and understood the studies), or I found a well-documented story about a person who recently undertook the medical procedure and suffered adverse reactions, then I could offer you advice based on that -- though I'd have to be careful to only claim what the evidence can support.

My point is: ethical advice hands you evidence you can verify, and well-qualified independent expertise, and lets you make your own mind up. Unethical advice claims authority it doesn't have, swaps personal convictions, scriptural references and subjective experiences for evidence and generally messes with your head.

I don't mean any disrespect, but the Buddha figure out objective and subjective thinking 2500 years ago.In fairness, the Buddha drew on a lot of quite advanced Hindu and Jainist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jainism) thinking that preceded him. I also think that in the end, he did what Plato did -- decided where he wanted to go, and then found a preferred road to get there. I think he does a fairly elegant job of connecting reason to compassion, but I don't think he got in the first word on the topic of evidence, or gets the last.

He did however have a sensible suggestion about drugs. From the fifth precept of the Pancasilani (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Five_Precepts):
I undertake the training rule to abstain from fermented drink that causes heedlessness.I can't argue with that at all.

[bigb]

It's an implication of Diana's suggestion that if atheists took drugs, they'd discover God. My thinking is that if that were true, or even if most religious people thought it were true, they'd be licking a lot more toads and blotting paper than they presently are.

I'm not sure about discovering god with drugs, there would be many religious junkies running around if that were true.

I will say, and the majority of people who have experimented with LSD would agree, that it's a permanent perception altering experience. Is that good or bad? Well were back to the definition of good and bad, and, neither exist in concrete. Things are, how we perceive them.
What's the experience thats so altering(which I would have ask out of curiosity if only for entertainment) You experience Creation. How, i have no clue, and that's what science is working on right now, because there is no other substance known to man that is capable of such an experience. Scientist believe there to be several possible uses for the drug, in it's psychotropic form and non psychotropic form.

In fairness, the Buddha drew on a lot of quite advanced Hindu and Jainist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jainism) thinking that preceded him. I also think that in the end, he did what Plato did -- decided where he wanted to go, and then found a preferred road to get there. I think he does a fairly elegant job of connecting reason to compassion, but I don't think he got in the first word on the topic of evidence, or gets the last.

Unless I was always to dumb to understand everybody else I read, Plato included, Buddha put it in terms that the average person could understand and apply to everyday life. He found the connection between meditation and present time awareness, was he the first or last, no, but he did want that info available for all who were interested.

He did however have a sensible suggestion about drugs. From the fifth precept of the Pancasilani (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Five_Precepts):

I can't argue with that at all.

It's been twenty years since I've had anything stronger than an expresso(of which I'm a junky)

[Diana Hignutt]

I don't claim to be a scientist.

But, I do claim to be an explorer of reality, and have been for the majority of my life. I have peeked around the edges of what you (Ruv and company) laughingly call objective reality. It would be cute if reality were really that simple.

It is the vanity of science to claim that no one can know anything unless science stamps its seal of approval. I reject this argument.

Drugs can break the barriers to a larger awareness of the nature of reality. I do not recommend such a course of action to anyone, and certainly not minors or imbeciles. You decide if you fit those category.

The hubris from team science here is amusing. And, sure, team God, is a disparate group (fuck, some people in team God think I'm the fucking anti-christ--I'm not, really). So?

[Ruv Draba]

It is the vanity of science to claim that no one can know anything unless science stamps its seal of approval. I reject this argument.I've never said that, but I have said that if it's not evidence it's unreliable, and that if it's not shareable and viewed skeptically then it's not evidence.

team God, is a disparate group [..] So?So if they're pulling in disparate directions, how are they a team?

I can accept that science might be a team. Its team motto might be something like 'the shared truth, whatever it is'. That team certainly doesn't reject religious members, mystical members, and members who believe in magic. It doesn't even reject people who disagree with the established wisdom. But it does require them to play the same way -- with shareable experiences viewed skeptically. If you don't want to play the same way, they kick you out.

But what would be the shared motto of 'team god'? They have so little in common, and they pull in such different directions...

Maybe it's 'team God: nobody's right but me'.

I'd be careful about tossing around words like hubris and vanity if that's the team I thought I played for.

[veinglory]

So, Team God has descended patronising the heathens and implying unproveable but profound superiority.

Heh, based on that I guess I'll worship Edward.

[AMCrenshaw]

In my humble opinion, this thread was more useful w/out teams.



AMC

[Ruv Draba]

Endorsed, Mr Crenshaw.

[bigb]

Don't knock imbeciles on drugs, much like reality TV, just more entertaining.

Definitely not a team player here.

I am curious who would coach team God?

[ColoradoGuy]

In my humble opinion, this thread was more useful w/out teams.



AMC

We're all on Team Humanity.

[AMCrenshaw]

We're all on Team Humanity.

O I don't know Earth Creature

[Ruv Draba]

We're all on Team Humanity.Endorsed again... (Or at least, we're all in the same boat...)

[Ruv Draba]

I will say, and the majority of people who have experimented with LSD would agree, that it's a permanent perception altering experience. Is that good or bad? Well were back to the definition of good and bad, and, neither exist in concrete.My readings support that LSD can have long-term effects on perception. What I don't agree with is what that perception means (because it's wildly diverse), or that 'good' is arbitrary. We can tell ourselves stories about 'good', but we can also assess independently whether a person is functional, and whether that function is enhanced or diminished. There is plenty of evidence to show people suffering dysfunction on psychotropics including LSD, including long-term dysfunction, including dysfunction that the sufferer regrets.

[Bartholomew]

Drugs can break the barriers to a larger awareness of the nature of reality. I do not recommend such a course of action to anyone, and certainly not minors or imbeciles. You decide if you fit those category.


The brain is the organ that untangles our experiences into data we can interpret. When you mess with its chemistry, it untangles the data differently.

This is an effect on the person who took the drugs, not the universe. And there's no evidence to support that the effects of mind-altering drugs are linked to any sorts of meta-physical phenomena.

That's not hubris; it's logical deduction.

That's not to say that such an experience can have no value. It probably can.

But so can a full round of REM sleep.

[Paul]

so, em, there's no evidence then?


or perhaps the thread title should change?

still, beats writin...

[Bartholomew]

so, em, there's no evidence then?


or perhaps the thread title should change?

still, beats writin...

Evidence for God exists for people who already believe in it, and will never exist for people who already disbelieve in it. Those unsure and seeking will never decide what constitutes evidence until they decide whether or not they believe.

It's awful. :)

[Diana Hignutt]

My readings support that LSD can have long-term effects on perception. What I don't agree with is what that perception means (because it's wildly diverse), or that 'good' is arbitrary. We can tell ourselves stories about 'good', but we can also assess independently whether a person is functional, and whether that function is enhanced or diminished. There is plenty of evidence to show people suffering dysfunction on psychotropics including LSD, including long-term dysfunction, including dysfunction that the sufferer regrets.

I'm pretty fucking fucntional, bucko. Though, it has been years since my major experiments with LSD, mushrooms, peyote, etc. I run a business which employees 15 people, I'm starting another business--a publishing concern, I've written two multi-award-nominated novels, and other cool stuff. I'm an internationally known transgender activist with multiple national televised interviews and have been interviewed on hundreds of radio stations across North America. I garden like there's no tomorrow. I'm one of the smartest fucking people on the planet (if a dash eccentric). And, I'm your last best hope against something you can't even conceive of. Pretty fucking functional, imho.

Why is team science about all the ad hominum attacks in this thread anyway, again? What doubts swirling in your cute little brains that make such pot shots necessary? Ask yourselves that. Or is it all about thinking you can break this board's Rule #1: Respect your fellow writer, with impunity, because you think that you're fucking right, and I'm fucking wrong?

The problem is you people are trying to frame this debate on the grounds of science, when it's lackings are entirely the evidence that you wish to ignore.

You are being subjugated by the confines of your worldview.

[Diana Hignutt]

I guess I'll worship Edward.

He is kinda cute.

[bigb]

My readings support that LSD can have long-term effects on perception. What I don't agree with is what that perception means (because it's wildly diverse), or that 'good' is arbitrary. We can tell ourselves stories about 'good', but we can also assess independently whether a person is functional, and whether that function is enhanced or diminished. There is plenty of evidence to show people suffering dysfunction on psychotropics including LSD, including long-term dysfunction, including dysfunction that the sufferer regrets.

It's hard to respond, we all know that good and bad, the same as pretty and ugly, fat and thin, etc,etc, are arbitrary. If a person is frightened by a situation, one might work through it and find the result to be "good", another may never be able to think of that situation again without fear and find it to be "bad". Us, standing outside of the situation, some will think the person who's result is "bad" is silly from not learning from the situation, the same as the person with "good" result, and it can go on and on.

I can only base my experience and insight on real life such as the example above. I grew up with more than a dozen people, going to dead shows and enjoying chemicals and such that all enjoy productive employment, family, and the typical american standards.

I also know many people, from the same era, of whom I was friends that chose a different path, heroin, cocaine, meth, prison and death. Many people I know, some I knew well are dead. Several of them, never did LSD, had no interest in being fake hippies and did their own thing. Some are productive citizens after a truly distructive lifestyle.

So when you say plenty of evidence, to me your plenty of evidence is arbitrary. I believe in scientific propaganda as much as I believe in my own. And I believe in scientific evidence when it works to my point. I hope thaats arbitrary enough. (I didn't even know how to spell arbitrary till now. I needs some skoolin)

[Diana Hignutt]

Further, our team science friends claim that a level of "good enough" objectivity is all that science requires. This is essentially the same as saying that short hand is the same as calligraphy. "Good enough" is not good enough to snub your noses at the honest beliefs of others, which may be based on other, equally valid (or not) mystical methods.


Disclaimer: Diana hates organized religion, and feels it is a form of tyranny over the mind of humanity. However, individual mystical experience is another matter entirely.

[Diana Hignutt]

BTW, I wasn't the one who brought up teams (that was Dr. Z and Ruv).

[Ruv Draba]

Why is team science about all the ad hominum attacks in this thread anyway, again?Huh? Diana, how did you get from my general medical comment, which is that LSD causes dysfunction in some people, long term dysfunction in some others etc... to a personal attack?

It's strange enough that you'd jump in front of a moving train and take it personally, but you had to change lines and jump onto the wrong track on this one.

BTW, I wasn't the one who brought up teams (that was Dr. Z and Ruv).First use of 'team science' was Dr Z...

Considering my line of work and earlier research, I think it's fair to say that I am firmly in the camp that bats for team science....but first use of 'team God' was actually yours...

The irony of me batting for team God in this thread finally hit me. Most of team God would rather have nothing to do with me, I'm sure.

[Ruv Draba]

It's hard to respond, we all know that good and bad, the same as pretty and ugly, fat and thin, etc,etc, are arbitrary.Er... no we don't all know that.

To me, 'good' has an objective, shared component, as do 'pretty' and 'unpretty', 'fat' and 'thin'.

The objective, shared component of good is 'that which someone finds useful' -- for example, a person who has trouble walking can find a walking-stick good. It's an objective component to the extent that we can understand one another's needs -- and we often understand needs very well. One of the reasons we can provide effective medical care to the unconscious is that we have a fair understanding of what unconscious people need, for example. Likewise, parents with children and so on. Humans are quite good at anticipating and interpreting one another's needs. If we weren't, our parenting and civilisations would look very different, and perhaps like crocodiles we wouldn't have parenting or civilisations at all.

Likewise, the objective components of pretty and unpretty, fat and thin have to do with signs of health and unhealth, which humans tend to agree on.

There can be a subjective components to these things too, but even subjective components are not entirely arbitrary. Humans often form value-judgements according to statistical groupings -- e.g. by culture, gender and so on. Across the world, we're attracted to certain colours and scents, and some qualities more than others, for instance. So preference isn't as arbitrary as one might think, because it's nothing like uniformly distributed across population.
So when you say plenty of evidence, to me your plenty of evidence is arbitrary.You may be more indifferent to evidence than I am. That's not a personal slight -- it may simply reflect how much time we both spend looking for it. I find evidence of human commonality fascinating, but even if I didn't, I can't not see it. My brain's wired to look for it in a way that's a bit hard to explain, but it may well be a function of personality. Perhaps in the same fashion, there are people whose brains are wired not to care so much for evidence? Perhaps they run on feelings and hunches instead?
I believe in scientific propaganda as much as I believe in my own. And I believe in scientific evidence when it works to my point.I mentioned half-jokingly that 'team science's motto would be 'The truth, whatever it is'. But many people live a life of 'the truth when it suits me'. It takes extraordinary discipline and procedure to go from the latter to the former -- in fact scientists have to rely on one another so that they don't slip from A to B.

If everyone lived by 'the truth, when it suits me', it might be hard to believe that there is any truth at all. But that's putting the cart before the horse. When people choose to live by 'the truth, whatever it is', and help each other to do so, it turns out that they often arrive at the same, common truths.

Further, our team science friends claim that a level of "good enough" objectivity is all that science requires.'Good enough' means something very particular in science. It's not simply 'whatever we need to make our point', for example. If we want to take samples in science, we have to take a certain number of samples to be convincing, and we have to take them a certain way. For example, in the case of drugs we'd need to survey statistically significant proportions of drug-users and non drug-users at random to decide whether drugs were helping, harming or both. But when we do that then the conclusions tend to come out the same. We find out what results are reliable and what aren't; what beliefs are supported by evidence and what aren't.

But for us to accept those findings we have to first accept that truth is more important than belief -- i.e. we have to agree to live by 'the truth, whatever it is'. If we don't accept that then we can't really discuss shared truth at all; just individual belief.

I'm certainly not saying that you have to accept a 'truth, whatever it is' sort of premise, Diana. But if you don't then we differ so much about what 'evidence' means that there's really not much common ground to discuss it.

[Diana Hignutt]

I'm certainly not saying that you have to accept a 'truth, whatever it is' sort of premise, Diana. But if you don't then we differ so much about what 'evidence' means that there's really not much common ground to discuss it.

Fair enough. Sadly, you'll be changing your tune soon enough. I wish to God (;)) that this wasn't so, but it is. If I die mysteriously in the next few months, start to worry that your worldview is about to become unhinged, otherwise, you have a couple of years. Make the most of them. Believe as you will, while you can.

God help us all.

My best to everyone.

[Bartholomew]

Also, I choose to interpret the lack of replies to my previous post as unanimous agreement.

Fair enough. Sadly, you'll be changing your tune soon enough. I wish to God (;)) that this wasn't so, but it is. If I die mysteriously in the next few months, start to worry that your worldview is about to become unhinged, otherwise, you have a couple of years. Make the most of them. Believe as you will, while you can.

God help us all.

My best to everyone.

What is the terrible secret that'll make Ruv change his tune?

[Diana Hignutt]

What is the terrible secret that'll make Ruv change his tune?

What? You can't wait a few years to learn the secrets of your existence? Kids these days.

I should tell you and be killed to win some sort of internet debate on the Unprovable? I'm far more reckless than I should be as it is. I'll keep my fucking mouth closed.

[Bartholomew]

What? You can't wait a few years to learn the secrets of your existence? Kids these days.

I should tell you and be killed to win some sort of internet debate on the Unprovable? I'm far more reckless than I should be as it is. I'll keep my fucking mouth closed.

If someone is going to kill you over an internet post, they'll kill you anyway now that they know you know.

Even if you delete your posts, Google caches them.

You might as well get the truth out there before your impending assassination.

[Bartholomew]

In fact, the way I see it, as long as they know you know the secret, you're dead.

But if you tell the secret and turn out to have been wrong, they'll have no reason to kill you.

Your only hope is to spill all and pray to the powers above that you're mistaken.

<Solemn Nod>

[Diana Hignutt]

Knowing the secret is fine. Telling the secret is what gets you killed.

[Bartholomew]

Knowing the secret is fine. Telling the secret is what gets you killed.

How did you find out the secret if telling it gets people killed?

Are you secretly living with your wizened mentor's death on your shoulders?

Shame, Hignutt. Shame.

[Ruv Draba]

Sadly, you'll be changing your tune soon enough.A prophet never knows defeat --
When vision fails, there's still conceit,
And skeptics he will scorn and scoff at --
How wonderful to be a prophat!

[bigb]

[QUOTE=Ruv Draba;4785568]Er... no we don't all know that.

To me, 'good' has an objective, shared component, as do 'pretty' and 'unpretty', 'fat' and 'thin'.

The objective, shared component of good is 'that which someone finds useful' -- for example, a person who has trouble walking can find a walking-stick good. It's an objective component to the extent that we can understand one another's needs -- and we often understand needs very well. One of the reasons we can provide effective medical care to the unconscious is that we have a fair understanding of what unconscious people need, for example. Likewise, parents with children and so on. Humans are quite good at anticipating and interpreting one another's needs. If we weren't, our parenting and civilisations would look very different, and perhaps like crocodiles we wouldn't have parenting or civilisations at all.QUOTE]

I don't believe in good or bad, and am ashamed that it's so ingrained in me that I can't shake it, and crocodiles have been here one or two minutes more than human.

Evidence is important to me, that's why I shared real life expeience which is a bit more reliable than reading something that scientist with an agenda have written. All scientist have an agenda, that's why they try to find the answer, they are passonate about it and very good at what they do.

But when you speak of evidence of god, there is no controlled environment for god, unless I missed the memo, so we need to rely on real world experience.

I'm sure there were and are controlled environments for drug research, most of which would have some agenda in mind, which will make their evidence point to the answer most profitable. You could argue that, but you can also watch the stock market when a new drug is approved. Take the profit out of science and it would be more reliable. Oh and for this thread find a controlled environment for god.

[bigb]

Oh, and everybody lives as the truth suits them, I have met a few monks that have it almost beat, but other than that, we all are sinners.

[bigb]

Evidence for God exists for people who already believe in it, and will never exist for people who already disbelieve in it. Those unsure and seeking will never decide what constitutes evidence until they decide whether or not they believe.

It's awful. :)

I'm new to the rodeo, but I think we are still trying to define evidence.

Science types are looking for a clean room big enough to fit god in to run some double blind, peer reviewed with a dash of placebo test.

Other types, (actually don't know what to call them, us, me, whatever) are waiting for Owsley.

[Ruv Draba]

But when you speak of evidence of god, there is no controlled environment for god, unless I missed the memo, so we need to rely on real world experience.You may have a bit of confusion about what an experiment is, Bigb.

To the extent that belief in 'god' generates creation and intervention hypotheses we can certainly test for them. Indeed, we've done so and know that by every sensible test, the world is not 6,000 years old, and prayer alone does not normally cure leprosy, for instance. Those tests are in fact based on real world experience.

As for the conspiracy-theory assertion of scientists with agendas, the basic scientific agenda is to undertake disciplined enquiry into shared, reliable truth. If you want to argue that there's more than that pervading the entire discipline, I think you'll need more than wild assertions.

Science types are looking for a clean room big enough to fit god in to run some double blind, peer reviewed with a dash of placebo test.I have no interest in testing for 'god', by the way. I think the term is meaningless, except as a fiction.

[bigb]

As for the conspiracy-theory assertion of scientists with agendas, the basic scientific agenda is to undertake disciplined enquiry into shared, reliable truth. If you want to argue that there's more than that pervading the entire discipline, I think you'll need more than wild assertions.

I didn't realize that working for profit was a wild assertion. I apologize.

I also have not met these scientist who aren't human.

Science has an agenda, a good one too. But all the scientist I've met are human. The close to a hundred my ***** works with, interacts with and helps with their ****** issues, are all personal agenda based, trying to be the first, best, name in a book or whatever would be their personal gratification humans. I applaud them for it, they do amazing things all the time. Their so freaking smart it's hard to talk to them. Never the less, they are human and will twist their results for their own agenda.

I know, I know, checks and balances, peer review, all of which can be paid for with money, a name credit on a project or a new pocket protecter.

(sorry for the **, but needed)

[bigb]

I have no interest in testing for 'god', by the way. I think the term is meaningless, except as a fiction.

My line was funny, c'mon

[Ruv Draba]

I know, I know, checks and balances, peer review, all of which can be paid for with money, a name credit on a project or a new pocket protecter.You're right that if the process isn't executed correctly, the observations may be in doubt, but you're wrong if you think that one can't tell when the process isn't executed correctly. Errors were caught (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1840063/)in Gregor Mendel's methods a century and a half after he published, for instance.

I think you're arguing doubt for doubt's sake. But even some of the most devout believers in creation myths won't normally argue that line, Bigb, because it's not sustainable; it's almost tinfoil-helmet conspiracy theory. We know scientific observation is reliable because when we use its artefacts, they work. That doesn't make all scientific theories correct, but it does speak to the quality and consistency of the underlying observations.

I think that the issue here is really your defence of the proposition 'truth while it suits me'. To keep that seeming reasonable, we have to undermine truth that works just fine without us. But despite elaborate rhetoric, if we leave our shoes under the couch and nobody touches them, that's where we'll find them -- or we can direct someone else to find them.

Objective reality works fine without us, and we don't have to be scientists to see that. We all depend on objective reality whenever we send someone to fetch our shoes; arguments about scientists and scientific process are really something of a distraction.

My line was funny, c'monSome people take it seriously though. Else they wouldn't argue creation vs evolution of man.

[Priene]

Predicting the end of the world is one of the few occasions when religious people come up with a testable hypothesis. So far, each one (http://www.abhota.info/end1.htm) has proved wrong.

[Ruv Draba]

Predicting the end of the world is one of the few occasions when religious people come up with a testable hypothesis....along with explaining how the world and cosmos formed, how people, plants and animals came to exist, how disease and death occur, how matter behaves, and the physical consequences of certain behaviours (typically those considered good and bad). Faiths often produce testable hypotheses, and that's actuall part of their problem in an increasingly knowledgable world.

When religion, mysticism and magic try to predict or explain physical matters they generally do a resoundingly poor job. This is because the physical world behaves very reliably, our own imaginations do a poor job at guessing how it works, and it takes real effort and discipline to overcome our own ignorance.

Each time a system of belief tries and fails to explain things, it faces a choice: either to pretend that it's still right somehow, or to acknowledge its failure and learn.

Religions, magic and mysticism generally do the former (though not all do), while rational empiricism does the latter. In consequence, while more superstitious beliefs become less trusted over time, empiricism is becoming more trusted.

I think it's important for faiths to understand what evidence actually means in the material world, and to realise that neither faith nor scripture constitute evidence of anything material. If they fail to do that, they may well grow increasingly marginalised and perhaps replaced by faiths that manage their relationships with science, empiricism and objective study better.

[Ruv Draba]

This doggerel dedicated to Diana and Bigb:

I dropped a trip the other day,
(For me, that's rather odd).
I wasn't trying to rebel,
But have a chat with God.

Cos meditation didn’t work
-- it's dumb as one hand clapping,
And pray'r just gave me creaky knees --
But drugs might catch Him napping.

I got my square of blotting-wad
And sucked it like a bub,
I hoped to see some cherubim --
Or 'least a burning shrub.

At first it made me sweat and pace,
My pulse went to the moon.
My mouth took on a metal taste --
Like sucking on a spoon.

I tasted blue and smelled a sneeze,
And thought that I could fly.
I stared so long right at the sun,
It burned out half my eye.

I felt my skin was sloughing off,
And hair grow from my ears.
I learned the earth is really flat --
The curve's in our corneas.

And all the trees are upside-down --
Their roots are in the sky.
And dogs and cats and birds and rats
All dream of pecan pie.

And while my friends were chasing me,
I’d run and rave and chortle --
If that is what God’s mind is like,
I’d rather someone mortal.

[Diana Hignutt]

Predicting the end of the world is one of the few occasions when religious people come up with a testable hypothesis. So far, each one (http://www.abhota.info/end1.htm) has proved wrong.

I think we can all agree to hope that keeps up. Nobody wants me to be wrong more than me. I'm not religious though, that's definitely not the right word for me. Perhaps, whackjob would be better.

Give me three years, and you all can scoff, and if all goes well, I'll breathe the biggest sigh of relief in history. I know I might be wrong. I'm human. I don't think I'm wrong, sadly. Time will tell. I'm done here now.

[bigb]

I think that the issue here is really your defence of the proposition 'truth while it suits me'. To keep that seeming reasonable, we have to undermine truth that works just fine without us. But despite elaborate rhetoric, if we leave our shoes under the couch and nobody touches them, that's where we'll find them -- or we can direct someone else to find them.

Under the couch, setee, or love seat. Some people see them all as the same object even though there not. If I sent some one to get my shoes under the couch, and they looked under the love seat, and they were there, then we'd be talkin.

I think I said people, truth while it suits me. Not truth that works just fine without us. People have the the personal filter that creates our interpratation of what we see, hear, taste, smell, feel.

Doubt for doubt sake, seems extreme, doubt for argument sake, seems to be what most people who like to argue practice. I doubt for my own protection, question everything for the simple fact that somebody else might not.

I'm pretty sure some one tried to poison my wife and I years ago, she was ready to drink what was given and I said no way. When we got to the car she said, "I'm glad you told me not to drink that, it was gettin like Jonestown in there". Me and doubt are good friends when people are involed in the transaction.

Else they wouldn't argue creation vs evolution of man.

Well I hope they get paid for those arguements, cause present time awareness seems a bit more important to daily life.

[bigb]

Your poem was awesome, anytime you can get pecan pie in a poem it's a winner.

All the athiest I know meditate(at least that call themselves athiest), but I think it's because some athiest accept Buddhas basic teachings. We've never really talked about it directly, the whole no god thing, i guess cause we would be in agreement. Buddha or silence were normally the subject

Great poem though, I'm going to save it if that's ok with you.

[Ruv Draba]

People have the the personal filter that creates our interpratation of what we see, hear, taste, smell, feel.While that's born out by experiment, the implication that the world is entirely subjective and arbitrary is not. That we are able to communicate and cooperate so well, that objects are so reliably constant, and that people without object constancy are deeply dysfunctional are all strong evidence for an objective, common world.

That's not to say that our world is entirely knowable, or that our knowledge isn't sometimes prone to systematic error. But one thing we know for dead sure (because nature keeps rubbing our noses in it) is that subjective knowledge, and knowledge formed from imagination and guesswork are far less reliable than knowledge we validate against other perception of our shared world.
Doubt for doubt sake, seems extreme, doubt for argument sake, seems to be what most people who like to argue practice.Sure; it's paranoia vs. skepticism and I'm not really suggesting that you're being paranoid.

But the Buddhist/Hindu/Jainist belief that our world is illusory is a dogmatic one, and not born out by evidence. To hold to dogmatic belief against experiential evidence requires a retreat into rhetoric. Depending on who's arguing and how, the rhetoric can either get poetical or paranoid-looking. Whenever we see that, it's a sign that we're using dogma rather than evidence to reason with. When you started arguing in principle for scientific corruption leading to systematic error without being able to demonstrate the corruption or the error, I felt I was in tinfoil hat territory. :)
All the athiest I know meditate(at least that call themselves athiest), but I think it's because some athiest accept Buddhas basic teachings. We've never really talked about it directly, the whole no god thing, i guess cause we would be in agreement. Buddha or silence were normally the subjectDespite my silly poem I have no objection at all to meditation (or prayer as meditation and autosuggestion either), but the transcendentiality and mysticism of some meditative philosophies do make me twitch. :)

Great poem though, I'm going to save it if that's ok with you.Fill ya boots. :)

[Dommo]

Meditation is a good thing in my book. Just sitting for a moment, and really giving some thought to something. I figure if we did that more often, we'd probably be a bit better off than we are now.

[RainyDayNinja]

To the extent that belief in 'god' generates creation and intervention hypotheses we can certainly test for them. Indeed, we've done so and know that by every sensible test, the world is not 6,000 years old, and prayer alone does not normally cure leprosy, for instance. Those tests are in fact based on real world experience.


I have to disagree with your assessment here. There has been research done into the variability of nuclear decay rates, which undermines radiometric dating. The following paper explains how zircon crystals which were radiometrically dated as 1.5 billion years showed only a few thousand years worth of helium leakage from the decay products:

http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/41/41_1/Helium_lo_res.pdf

Also, in 1984, a creationist published a prediction of the magnetic field of Neptune (based on a hypothesis that all matter was originally created as magnetically aligned water molecules, and later transformed to other atoms), which turned out to be more accurate than the old-earth secular prediction:

http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/21/21_3/21_3.html

In general, any science that pre-supposes purely naturalistic causes (according to Methodological Naturalism, which is SOP for science) cannot be used as evidence against the existence of God, because it would commit the logical fallacy of begging the question.

[bigb]

[QUOTE=Ruv Draba;4789292 But the Buddhist/Hindu/Jainist belief that our world is illusory is a dogmatic one, and not born out by evidence. To hold to dogmatic belief against experiential evidence requires a retreat into rhetoric. Depending on who's arguing and how, the rhetoric can either get poetical or paranoid-looking. Whenever we see that, it's a sign that we're using dogma rather than evidence to reason with. When you started arguing in principle for scientific corruption leading to systematic error without being able to demonstrate the corruption or the error, I felt I was in tinfoil hat territory. :)[/QUOTE]

It's actually getting harder to debate with you, cause I actually agree with you mostly. There is always room for debate, but I'm sure you understand what I mean.

I will always be a skeptic of any process that has profit attached. Just my way, and actually my experience.

The Buddha, Siddhartha Gautama to be specific, held no dogmatic belief, did believe that the universe was one, and everything was interconnected. Hard to wrap my mind around, but not at all rhetoric. The reason I try to practice an amatuer Buddhist lifestyle, aside from the fact that he taught his students to question everything because even he was subjective, and the present time awareness really helps cut down on subjectivity, is that there is no god or spirit needed. Since I don't have any, it works out pretty good.

[Ruv Draba]

I have to disagree with your assessment here. There has been research done into the variability of nuclear decay rates, which undermines radiometric dating.And we'll fiddle with dating techniques indefinitely, I expect, but no amount of fiddling across all the evidence will give us a credible story for the world being 6,000 years old. The continents would have to scoot around the planet like dodgem-cars, volcanoes would have to spatter like paintballs and species would have to bubble and mutate like a witch's cauldron just to fit the geological and biological evidence. :)

Also, in 1984, a creationist published a predictionMany scientists are also religious, so 'creationism' in its broadest sense clearly isn't incompatible with science. The issue here is the creationist hypotheses of specific religions -- e.g. origins of the world, and its species including humanity.

In general, any science that pre-supposes purely naturalistic causes (according to Methodological Naturalism, which is SOP for science) cannot be used as evidence against the existence of God, because it would commit the logical fallacy of begging the question.You may have missed my earlier comments -- the evidence runs against the dogma, not divinity. But when religious dogma goes, it's usually not just in tiny correctable particulars; it's shredded like a moth-eaten curtain. Which makes its other claims hard to entertain, much less credit.

My thought: religions should claim less, admit more ignorance, and admit error.

[Ruv Draba]

I will always be a skeptic of any process that has profit attached. Just my way, and actually my experience.It might depend on what you mean by profit. The difference between your income doing research and your income providing specialist services to industry is a factor of three or more (I know 'cos I've done both). Most scientists don't do science with dreams of getting rich from it. Some do have dreams of fame, but they're not exactly rock-stars and if fame motivated them they'd be much less shy about talking to the media than they really are. Really, what keeps scientists doing science is they love the challenge and are fascinated by their discipline.

If you want to peg a blind-spot on a scientist, the most common one is that all they can see is their discipline. I sometimes joke that you could ask a scientist to design a death-camp and they'd have the problem half-solved before they thought to ask why you wanted it. :)

Siddhartha Gautama to be specific, held no dogmatic belief, did believe that the universe was one, and everything was interconnected.I don't really object to that, if we define 'universe' to mean 'everything that connects' -- which is not a bad definition. Scientists suspect that there are parts of 'the universe' that don't connect though -- they're so far from us that they have no causal interaction at all -- light won't reach them, gravity can't touch them... but to me that's theoretical. If you can't affect it, you don't really know it's there.

But that's physical connection. Less convicing to me is moral connection. I feel morally connected with just about everything, but that's in my head and it's only because of how I care about stuff. Expecting the world to hold our moral connections for us doesn't seem realistic; especially when many humans don't feel morally connected to much at all, and the world works exactly the same way for them as for me. My conclusions: objects have constancy; cause and effects persist but morality lives inside our heads. So Gautama and I have a difference of opinion there. His world-view seems a bit inside-out to me.

Buddhism seems to run a spectrum from theism (some Buddhists also believe in gods) through to nontheistic mysticism (the ones who believe in karma and reincarnation, but not gods and spirits) through to secular humanism (the ones who just take the world as it comes and try to be kind). In my part of the world, Buddhism is fairly popular (Australia has more Buddhists than Baptists; there's a Buddhist monastery a stone's throw from my home, and a Buddhist study centre near my office). I tend to pay attention to the humanism and the relaxation and mindfulness exercises, but as it gets a bit hoomygoomier -- prostrations and so forth -- I lose interest.

[bigb]

Buddhas interconnectedness(is that even a word) is compared to dropping a pebble in water, so physical. I have'nt given much thought to moral connection.

My practice is basic soto zen style meditation, which you do with no expectation. It's about clearing your mind, concentrating on the breath. This I have found helps with present time awareness. I am going to start a thread on present time awareness, when I figure out a way to make it sustainable in the sense for debate.

I try to stick to what the buddha actually said. How, well it actually takes a bit of faith. Hopefully when the pali canon, or pali suttas as they are also called were written, they reflect what he taught, several hundred years after his death. Who knows really, but I don't think disease or death have come to anyone trying to follow. Unless you count persecution, which hopefully in America we won't have.

It's never been clear, to me at least, if the buddha believed in any kind of afterlife. It really depends on who you ask, I mean Tibetan's have a list of hells and deitys, all of which makes for some great tatoo's.

But one thing would be clear, Buddha would have encouraged others to question afterlife even if he believed in it.

[Paul]

Oh, I thought someone just posted the evidence.

oh well


;)

[Ruv Draba]

It was posted, Paul, but they had to take it down because of copyright infringements. :(

[Ruv Draba]

My practice is basic soto zen style meditation, which you do with no expectation. It's about clearing your mind, concentrating on the breath. This I have found helps with present time awareness.No arguments here. I've done it in Aikido, in boxing, running, weight-training... even in singing. Breathing is handy. :)

Is it magic? I don't think so, except in the same way that hugs are. I think it's possible to get caught up in anything too seriously... make it too ritualised, expect too much of it. But I think that awareness is useful as long as we're living our lives too.

[bigb]

Hugs are Magic!

[Paul]

It was posted, Paul, but they had to take it down because of copyright infringements. :(

:D

[Gehanna]

Based on the information I have, Buddha left his wife and child for 7 years. Provided my information is accurate, I will not support the following of his teachings. This is because I am not inclined to justify the abandonment of parental responsibility in favor of seeking enlightenment. If there is any relevant information I lack, please let me know. I admit that my opinion comes from my values and it is doubtful that any additional information would cause me to change my mind. Despite the doubt, I would still be interested in the information and your powers of persuasion.

Gehanna

[Diana Hignutt]

No arguments here. I've done it in Aikido, in boxing, running, weight-training... even in singing. Breathing is handy. :)

Is it magic? I don't think so, except in the same way that hugs are. I think it's possible to get caught up in anything too seriously... make it too ritualised, expect too much of it. But I think that awareness is useful as long as we're living our lives too.

It's also possible to get too caught up in your worldview to expect too little of life and the universe.

For all you know you could be one of the inhabitants of Plato's cave, measuring shadows and thinking you understand the world.

For all you know, I could be some sort of occult intelligence, a spirit or god. And here we are having this nice conversation. Your sense of objective reality will deny this out of hand, but you have no way to know whether I'm real. Sure, there's a picture. It could be anybody. You could wiki this person I'm claiming to be (and no, I didn't list myself there), or google, but that won't prove anything. You can't know. I might have entered this account info here on AW, borrowing this person's name. You don't know. And for all I know, you're some Mormon school girl from Montreal, yanking our chains, for the sake of debate. We know nothing about each other in reality. We work on the reasonable assumptions you like to call science and reality. They are modes of perception. But, in the end, unless, you come to wherever I am and watch me enter these words, you can't be sure I'm doing it. And, maybe, even if you did see me doing it, if i were possessed by some non-human intelligence, you still won't know. Or, if i had multiple personality disorder, you won't know which personality was writing. Assumptions of a rational, scientific universe are wonderfully useful things, but they may not be the end all be all.

Is that evidence for God? Of course, not. But being a slave of logic and reason imprisons you, and disconnects you from the other possibilities of a universe far beyond your level of reality.

[bigb]

It's also possible to get too caught up in your worldview to expect too little of life and the universe.

For all you know you could be one of the inhabitants of Plato's cave, measuring shadows and thinking you understand the world.

For all you know, I could be some sort of occult intelligence, a spirit or god. And here we are having this nice conversation. Your sense of objective reality will deny this out of hand, but you have no way to know whether I'm real. Sure, there's a picture. It could be anybody. You could wiki this person I'm claiming to be (and no, I didn't list myself there), or google, but that won't prove anything. You can't know. I might have entered this account info here on AW, borrowing this person's name. You don't know. And for all I know, you're some Mormon school girl from Montreal, yanking our chains, for the sake of debate. We know nothing about each other in reality. We work on the reasonable assumptions you like to call science and reality. They are modes of perception. But, in the end, unless, you come to wherever I am and watch me enter these words, you can't be sure I'm doing it. And, maybe, even if you did see me doing it, if i were possessed by some non-human intelligence, you still won't know. Or, if i had multiple personality disorder, you won't know which personality was writing. Assumptions of a rational, scientific universe are wonderfully useful things, but they may not be the end all be all.

Is that evidence for God? Of course, not. But being a slave of logic and reason imprisons you, and disconnects you from the other possibilities of a universe far beyond your level of reality.

If any of that were true this conversaion would get interesting real quik. As long as the mormon school girl was over 18.

In all seriousness, that's how I don't believe in god, but don't argue against it. I doubt both sides equally. And it's certainly a more interesting existence looking at the two sides as you go through life and see what changes have happened in your own perspective. Mine have changed, or evolved if you will over the years.

[Diana Hignutt]

If any of that were true this conversaion would get interesting real quik. As long as the mormon school girl was over 18.

In all seriousness, that's how I don't believe in god, but don't argue against it. I doubt both sides equally. And it's certainly a more interesting existence looking at the two sides as you go through life and see what changes have happened in your own perspective. Mine have changed, or evolved if you will over the years.

What more could a person ask for? The perfect blend of open-mindedness and skepticism. You, my friend, rock.

ETA: Actually, evidence is being given to me (which none of you would understand without at least 5 years of very intense magickal training) that my joking quip may hold some truth. Here on page twenty-three of this thread. The whisperings of the universe have called me hence, mighty Ozymandias has ripped a whole in the fabric of reality, and willed me into existence. My coming has been foretold. 1918. 1946. 1964. 2012. My name is the secret of hope, the forces of darkness gather, but I fear them not. They have been called to summon me. TIME IS. And, my word, my will, I say to the world, in quiet lust. KNow all who I am.

[bigb]

Based on the information I have, Buddha left his wife and child for 7 years. Provided my information is accurate, I will not support the following of his teachings. This is because I am not inclined to justify the abandonment of parental responsibility in favor of seeking enlightenment. If there is any relevant information I lack, please let me know. I admit that my opinion comes from my values and it is doubtful that any additional information would cause me to change my mind. Despite the doubt, I would still be interested in the information and your powers of persuasion.Gehanna


I'm not a buddha salesman and apalogize if I came off that way. Siddhartha Gautama did leave his wife and child, in the lap of luxury, but did it none the less. They became two of his most loyal followers upon his return.

I mean Abraham was going to do some pretty interesting things for a voice in the sky, I guess by todays standards Buddha's choice wasn't so bad.

peace

[bigb]

What more could a person ask for? The perfect blend of open-mindedness and skepticism. You, my friend, rock.
.

It also allows me to play devils advocate and keep my hypocrisy to a minimum. Which does actually offend some people, so I got that going for me, which is nice.

[Diana Hignutt]

Here is the most important statement in the history of humanity, soon all will be revealed (it's in Enochian--which is nothing to trifle with--DO NOT READ OR REPEAT THESE WORDS ALOUD--they are not for your mouths, but noursihment for the spirit). Hear my Call:

LAP ZIRDO BABALON!


To the ends of the Earth may my Call be heard. Let those who are waiting hope and fear. TIME IS.

[Diana Hignutt]

I mean Abraham was going to do some pretty interesting things for a voice in the sky...


And then the voice said: "Psych."

[bigb]

Here is the most important statement in the history of humanity, soon all will be revealed (it's in Enochian--which is nothing to trifle with--DO NOT READ OR REPEAT THESE WORDS ALOUD--they are not for your mouths, but noursihment for the spirit). Hear my Call:
.

Am I allowed to make Bruce Campbell jokes?

[Diana Hignutt]

Am I allowed to make Bruce Campbell jokes?

I don't know what the world is coming to if you aren't.

[bigb]

LAP ZIRDO BABALON!

Clatto Verata Nicto.

Unavoidable,

Goonga, goonga, caloonga,

Ties in with my earlier, got that going for me post.

I hope when I start the present time awareness debate you will join in.

[Diana Hignutt]

I hope when I start the present time awareness debate you will join in.

Sure, unless, you've already started it in the past. :)

I don't really believe in time, so much, though. It's the illusion which prevents us from experiencing the universe properly, leads to all kinds of false starts, you know, like science...

[Ruv Draba]

But being a slave of logic and reason imprisons you, and disconnects you from the other possibilities of a universe far beyond your level of reality.I'm a slaaaaave to logic;
I am Aristotle's bitch.
Cos I don't believe in magic
And I know I'm not a witch.
Yeah, reality's my prison
And I never shall be free
Cos my logic's pokin holes
In narcissistic fantaseeeeeee.

[Diana Hignutt]

Cos my logic's pokin holes
In narcissistic fantaseeeeeee.

Is it? I hadn't noticed.

ETA: You are so damned cute sometimes....

[bigb]

Sure, unless, you've already started it in the past. :)

I don't really believe in time, so much, though. It's the illusion which prevents us from experiencing the universe properly, leads to all kinds of false starts, you know, like science...

The time part is for lack of a better term. It's like, brushing your teeth, are you really brushing your teeth, or planning your day.

[bigb]

I'm a slaaaaave to logic;
I am Aristotle's bitch.
Cos I don't believe in magic
And I know I'm not a witch.
Yeah, reality's my prison
And I never shall be free
Cos my logic's pokin holes
In narcissistic fantaseeeeeee.

I will purchase your poetry book when it's available.

[Diana Hignutt]

I hope when I start the present time awareness debate you will join in.

Build it, and they will come.

[Gehanna]

I'm not a buddha salesman and apalogize if I came off that way. Siddhartha Gautama did leave his wife and child, in the lap of luxury, but did it none the less. They became two of his most loyal followers upon his return.

I mean Abraham was going to do some pretty interesting things for a voice in the sky, I guess by todays standards Buddha's choice wasn't so bad.

peace

Hello bigb :),

Thank you for taking the time to respond. I did not think of you as being a Buddha salesman. I agree with you about Abraham. The man was about to do some seriously messed up stuff. While I comprehend your point about today’s standards, I continue to choose to see little difference in degree of seriousness between actions that threaten physical versus psychological well-being.

Two questions:

1. Which of these is greater, the ability to seek forgiveness or the ability to give it?

My opinion is both. It takes a great deal of character to admit to a mistake and attempt to correct it. Provided the mistake was genuine and not premeditation based on knowledge of another's capacity for compassion and forgiveness.

2. Which of these is greater, seeking forgiveness or permission?

My opinion is permission, within reason, that comes from regard for others and considering the potential negative impact of one’s actions on them.

Questions I am currently contemplating:

Did Buddha seek forgiveness? Did he feel he needed to?

The psyche is my favorite forest. Look at all those trees.

Gehanna

[bigb]

Hello bigb :),

Did Buddha seek forgiveness? Did he feel he needed to?

Gehanna

One of the basic, essential parts of the Buddhas awakening was "seeking" is one of the main causes of suffering.

All the text were written approx 400 years after his death, we have to accept that he was forgiven based on his family becoming loyal followers.

The difference I see between Abraham and Buddha would be;
Voice in the sky, versus, seeing suffering and wanting to find the root cause and solution to that suffering.

Problem is, these are just stories, and Abraham's story doesn't give any lesson that could actually be useful in real life.

At least Buddha, found that the source of suffering is ignorance, brought on by attachment. And tought an eight fold path to help keep that inorance in check.

I can't really speak to your other two questions. i'm cash and carry, believe that every situation is it's own, to be dealt with independently. I fail miseribly all the time, but make an honest effort.

peace

[Diana Hignutt]

1. Which of these is greater, the ability to seek forgiveness or the ability to give it?

Both are false virtues of the slave gods.



2. Which of these is greater, seeking forgiveness or permission?

Again, both are weaknesses. In all things the trick is to just do. To just be.



But you didn't ask me.

[bigb]

Or, what she said.(Diana Hignutt)

[bigb]

Better way of saying it

Present Moment Awareness

Gotta love rain days, I should be doing my corperate taxes, but fuck it that's what extensions are for

Scratch Moment, Just "Present Awareness"

[Diana Hignutt]

Where are all the atheists today? Come out, come out, come out to play!

Reality is a contradiction. There is no difference between theism and atheism. Two sides. Same Coin.

[ResearchGuy]

Where are all the atheists today? Come out, come out, come out to play!

Reality is a contradiction. There is no difference between theism and atheism. Two sides. Same Coin.
Two sides of the same coin? Riiiiiiggghhhhhhtttt . . .

Most. Boring. Thing. Ever. To attempt to dissuade someone who is hooked on mythology and superstition (whether it is religion or numerology or astrology). It's only the ones who use their mythology and superstitions to wage war, justify torture and murder, or to give themselves and their cronies a free pass on child molesting and other forms of cruelty that really need to be confronted. The rest are harmless in their delusions (unless they are enabling the torturers, molestors, etc.).

--Ken

[benbradley]

What more could a person ask for? The perfect blend of open-mindedness and skepticism. You, my friend, rock.
Well hey, I'm open to hard evidence of the existence of The Great Pumpkin, but just thinking about the legend's origin in a comic strip, I'm not going to expend much any time searching out such evidence. I'd hesitate to even click on a link posted here with such a claim, out of fear the webpage would contain a Rickroll virus.

So technically I'm a Great Pumpkin agnostic, but practically I'm a Great Pumpkin atheist.
ETA: Actually, evidence is being given to me (which none of you would understand without at least 5 years of very intense magickal training) ...
At first glance, that sounds insulting, but ...

Below is (some of) the gist of my seven years of going to AA meetings, having an AA sponsor and reading the Big Book and 12&12. I even spent months typing the first 164 pages of the Big Book (the accepted "canon" of AA) into a computer file, and I learned a lot doing that. There's of course a whole lot of lore, ideas and attitudes in AA that aren't written in the literature. The only reason it takes as long as it does to learn is that it's NOT written down, and it's learned and taught only by example, much of it subconsciously.

But yes, five years seems like a lot of training. I recall hearing so much stuff in AA about how long it takes to learn those 164 pages of the big book, such as a claim that "It takes five years to learn the steps, and another five years to take the steps" yet there's good evidence, and old-timers freely admit this, from the literature that in the first years of AA new recruits were taken through all twelve steps in hours if not days. (it's also legend that in the early days if you showed up at a meeting wearing a watch you were sent away, because you "haven't drank enough.")

But what brought this to mind was the "miracles" in AA - there's a lot of talk about miracles in AA, such as in the slogan "if you don't believe in miracles, keep coming back and you'll BE one!" Much of the talk seems to be figurative (similar to how it's used in the phrase "the miracle of modern medicine"), but often it's DEFNINTELY meant literally. I had only been sober and going to AA daily for a few months when I started seeing miracles. So it was a very much experiential process, and it seems one can't explain or discuss it intelligently to another without the other also spending the time going through it. Looking back, it was just my mind being reprogrammed as to what's possible and what's impossible (as in "no human power could have relieved our alcoholism"), and anytime something happened that went against that, it was automatically evidence for a miracle, an instance of Divine Intervention.

Your mention of open-mindedness brings to mind the Big Book's "Appendix II (http://silkworth.net/bb/appendix.html)" where the order of words in the last paragraph are rearranged to be "Honesty, Open mindedness and Willingness," with the three initial letters capitalized, and the saying is added that "this is HOW it works." (How It Works is the title of Chapter 5 which lists the 12 steps) There's much talk in meetings as well as the literature that one should "keep an open mind" toward "spiritual matters" and the steps and beliefs of AA, but "outside literature" isn't so venerated. "Outside" reading was sometimes actively discouraged, and at other times was approved "for entertainment purposes only," not to be taken seriously.

[Diana Hignutt]

Two sides of the same coin? Riiiiiiggghhhhhhtttt . . .

Most. Boring. Thing. Ever. To attempt to dissuade someone who is hooked on mythology and superstition (whether it is religion or numerology or astrology). It's only the ones who use their mythology and superstitions to wage war, justify torture and murder, or to give themselves and their cronies a free pass on child molesting and other forms of cruelty that really need to be confronted. The rest are harmless in their delusions (unless they are enabling the torturers, molestors, etc.).

--Ken

Have you ever tried to tell the people living in Plato's cave what was going on? That's really a challenge.

Otherwise, I agree wholeheartedly, that not only are myths or superstitions never a good justification for any real-life decisions, nothing justifies inhuman behavior toward others. Ever. See, we agree. Same coin.

[Diana Hignutt]

At first glance, that sounds insulting, but ...
.

So, Ben, you would expect to be able to do complex quantum physics experiments with no education and equipment? Could you write without being taught? No insult is intented. Not only are there numerous skills I do not possess, there is also much knowledge I do not possess. I don't know how to build a race car, or a dam, or a space shuttle. Should I be insulted by the areas of my own ignorance? Of course not.

Whatever you think about magick, it involves staggering levels of discipline, mental stamina, curiousity, imagination, love, vast research and grasping of ancient philosophical systems, and will. There is no crash course. Even, if you, and most people, don't believe in it, it doesn't change the fact, that the preparations leave the practioner in far better mental and physical condition, whatever the results. Art for art's sake, perhaps.

[benbradley]

It took me years of "training" to become a convincing "friend of Bill W." but I think most of what people need to know about AA and a lot of other groups is in the short, crudely-made video "Mind Control Made Easy."

[Diana Hignutt]

It took me years of "training" to become a convincing "friend of Bill W." but I think most of what people need to know about AA and a lot of other groups is in the short, crudely-made video "Mind Control Made Easy."

Which does not necessitate that all mystical/magickal/religious are the same. That's a very broad brush. Sure, I'll even give you a lot of religions fit that mold, but not all. Some are non-evangelizing. It's possible that our very society attempts to do the same thing.

The interesting thing about the AA is that the A.A. was the name (Astrum Argentum) was the name of an occult order founded by Aleister Crowley first.

[bigb]

The interesting thing about the AA is that the A.A. was the name (Astrum Argentum) was the name of an occult order founded by Aleister Crowley first.

I used to get in trouble for saying that in meetings, great way to piss off old timers.

I also used to get in trouble for discounting miracles, or time sober celebrations.
Is it a miracle to live in a way to be useful to others and yourself, which is the opposite of addiction. Or celebrate the fact that we, are now doing it. I think amazing, or habilitated are more appropriate.
Miracles can't be explained.
A group of people meeting for the purpose of helping each other fight addiction seems, amazing, but not miraculous.

Oldtimers hated me, but what do I know, I haven't been to meeting in 5 years, but haven't altered my mind in almost 20.

[Gehanna]

At least Buddha, found that the source of suffering is ignorance, brought on by attachment. And tought an eight fold path to help keep that inorance in check.


Ignorance too easily becomes an excuse for manipulators. Seek with diligence not to be ignorant. That is the direct way to keep ignorance in check and decrease suffering.

Hello Diana Hignutt,

To just do and to just be? Sounds like an excuse for people to avoid thinking before they act. It may work in a perfect world, but the concept has no beneficial application in this "real" or "experiential" world. Too much bad shit happens that I ascertain would not happen at all if the world had more critical thinkers than egocentric ones. I base my assumption of the world having less critical thinkers than egocentric ones on growth and development and belief that critical thinking requires ongoing skills development. Show me a critical thinking prodigy and I'll show you a golden ego for idol worship.

Gehanna

[bigb]

Ignorance too easily becomes an excuse for manipulators. Seek with diligence not to be ignorant. That is the direct way to keep ignorance in check and decrease suffering.
Gehanna

What? You have to remember I'm not educated, cause it seems like your saying Buddha was a manipulator, or possibly your speaking of ignorance as lack of education, which would make me ingnorant.
What is this direct way?
Seek with diligence not to be ignorant. Is that a statement or a solution? The Buddha created a 8 fold path that even an ignorant redneck like me could grasp.

Ignorance is not accepting ones own nature. That was the Buddhas point.

[Gehanna]

You have to remember I'm not educated.

Do you mean not educated as in not having a high school diploma or as in not having a doctoral degree in rocket science? If you mean the latter, then neither am I.

What I meant about ignorance is as follows:

Genuine ignorance as a lack of awareness of the motive(s) for one’s own actions. These individuals may lack cognitive ability to seek with diligence not to be ignorant.

Genuine ignorance as a lack of knowledge of information. These individuals may also lack cognitive ability to seek with diligence not to be ignorant. If not, then seeking with diligence not to be ignorant would be applicable. In other words, study to shew thyself approved... err wait. That is from the Bible. What I mean is to exert effort to gain the missing information. Exercise the capacity for learning.

Manipulative ignorance (feigned ignorance) as denial of known information. In this case, appropriately seeking with diligence not to be ignorant is rejected because it thwarts the manipulator's gain.

Manipulative ignorance (feigned ignorance) as denial of awareness of the motive(s) for one’s own actions. Again, there would be rejection to prevent the thwarting of the manipulator's gain.

Attempting to hide one's nature by feigning ignorance is a choice.

Gehanna

[Diana Hignutt]

Do you mean not educated as in not having a high school diploma or as in not having a doctoral degree in rocket science? If you mean the latter, then neither am I.

What I meant about ignorance is as follows:

Genuine ignorance as a lack of awareness of the motive(s) for one’s own actions.




First, the greatest rocket scientist (Jack Parsons, a distant relative of mine) had no formal education either, but he invented solid rocket fuel and founded the Jet Propulsion Lab.

Our motives? Aren't we all just puppets? Puppets of our early developmental problems, puppets of our environment, puppets of our endocrine systems. We have no real motives, do we? Motives are the illusion we apply to ourselves to deny the puppet nature of our existense. Isn't that right, my atheist friends? Help a girl out.

[Diana Hignutt]

Ah, for all you interested parties, I have decided to perform the magickal working, I mentioned previously, in a thread in this forum, where you can all watch and ask questions.

[Ruv Draba]

Aren't we all just puppets?Because there's no 'soul', you mean? Isn't that an excluded-middle sort of question?

Try it this way:
A: What if we are puppets, how would it change anything?
B: What if we're not puppets, what would we do differently?
As far as I can see, the answers don't change any decisions.

Now try asking this one:
C: What if we are partly puppets, partly not -- what would we do differently?
My answer: try and make a moral decision about how to balance those things, and perhaps what to do about them when they become imbalanced or bad for us.

That's pretty much how I do things now. I don't expect I'd do things differently if the premise were A or B instead.

[Diana Hignutt]

Ignorance too easily becomes an excuse for manipulators. Seek with diligence not to be ignorant. That is the direct way to keep ignorance in check and decrease suffering.

Hello Diana Hignutt,

To just do and to just be? Sounds like an excuse for people to avoid thinking before they act. It may work in a perfect world, but the concept has no beneficial application in this "real" or "experiential" world.

That's Taoism, my dear, and living with one's true will by another school. I didn't amke them up.

[bigb]

Do you mean not educated as in not having a high school diploma or as in not having a doctoral degree in rocket science? If you mean the latter, then neither am I.

What I meant about ignorance is as follows:

Genuine ignorance as a lack of awareness of the motive(s) for one’s own actions. These individuals may lack cognitive ability to seek with diligence not to be ignorant.

Genuine ignorance as a lack of knowledge of information. These individuals may also lack cognitive ability to seek with diligence not to be ignorant. If not, then seeking with diligence not to be ignorant would be applicable. In other words, study to shew thyself approved... err wait. That is from the Bible. What I mean is to exert effort to gain the missing information. Exercise the capacity for learning.

Manipulative ignorance (feigned ignorance) as denial of known information. In this case, appropriately seeking with diligence not to be ignorant is rejected because it thwarts the manipulator's gain.

Manipulative ignorance (feigned ignorance) as denial of awareness of the motive(s) for one’s own actions. Again, there would be rejection to prevent the thwarting of the manipulator's gain.

Attempting to hide one's nature by feigning ignorance is a choice.

Gehanna

Thery're still just statements and definitions with no solution.

My only point is, or was, that the Buddha found, most suffering was do to ignorance. Ignorance of our own impermanence, and the impermanence of all things. Our attachment to impermanent things is our biggest reason for suffering. He also came up with a strategy, to help get rid of some of that attachment and suffering.

[Diana Hignutt]

Because there's no 'soul', you mean? Isn't that an excluded-middle sort of question?

Try it this way:
A: What if we are puppets, how would it change anything?
B: What if we're not puppets, what would we do differently?
As far as I can see, the answers don't change any decisions.

Now try asking this one:
C: What if we are partly puppets, partly not -- what would we do differently?
My answer: try and make a moral decision about how to balance those things, and perhaps what to do about them when they become imbalanced or bad for us.

That's pretty much how I do things now. I don't expect I'd do things differently if the premise were A or B instead.

"We're all puppets, Laurie. I'm just the puppet that can see the strings." - Dr. Manhattan, Watchmen by Alan Moore.

[Gehanna]

To Diana Hignutt,

Are we not all relatives, genetically, of some distance or another? So and so being related to so and so, or so and so having a certain title, position, amount of money, etc. are only significant to me when I need to consider the impact, if any, on particular aspects of human behavior and functionality.

To bigb,

Do you suppose Buddha gave cause for his wife and child to experience suffering when he left them? I find it worse than ignorant to abandon your progeny. Buddha's wife and child became his followers, but I wonder, what else might they have done? What were their circumstances and how may those circumstances have influenced their choices. Too much information remains lacking.

Some of you may think poorly of me for my scrutiny. Whether or not you do is irrelevant. This is because I firmly believe scrutiny shears the strings of self-imposed puppetry.

Gehanna

[Diana Hignutt]

Some of you may think poorly of me for my scrutiny. Whether or not you do is irrelevant. This is because I firmly believe scrutiny shears the strings of self-imposed puppetry.


Crap, I love it. Great stuff. And, btw, feel free to call me, Diana, or just Di.

[bigb]

To bigb,

Do you suppose Buddha gave cause for his wife and child to experience suffering when he left them? I find it worse than ignorant to abandon your progeny. Buddha's wife and child became his followers, but I wonder, what else might they have done? What were their circumstances and how may those circumstances have influenced their choices. Too much information remains lacking.

Some of you may think poorly of me for my scrutiny. Whether or not you do is irrelevant. This is because I firmly believe scrutiny shears the strings of self-imposed puppetry.

Gehanna

I can say he left her a princess, as he was a prince. It was an arranged marriage. Her, and his son lived in royal luxury. There choice was to continue as they were prior to his return. Most historical text say she didn't immediately become a follower as his son did. She did eventually become one of the first nuns.
It's a conflicting account, probably why Christian's leave out Jesus' early years.

Why would somebody on this thread think poorly of scrutiny.

[Bartholomew]

Do you suppose Buddha gave cause for his wife and child to experience suffering when he left them? I find it worse than ignorant to abandon your progeny. Buddha's wife and child became his followers, but I wonder, what else might they have done? What were their circumstances and how may those circumstances have influenced their choices. Too much information remains lacking.


That was a completely different culture, where men were expected to make pilgrimages after a certain point in their lives. You can look down on him now for making a decision that makes no sense to your world view, but he lived in a culture where doing otherwise would have (1 - required him to eventually assume the throne of a nation he probably realized would be conquered, and (2 - seemed really strange to all the people around him at the time.

[Gehanna]

I do not look down on Buddha. I look horizontally. Thank you Diana Hignutt aka Diana, or just Di :-), bigb, and Bartholomew for your replies.

I am glad we utilized puppets on strings and not those with hands up their cavities.

Gehanna

[bigb]

I almost forgot how much I love this. It almost fits in with earlier discussions.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vX1CvW38cHA

RIP, another dead genius

[AMCrenshaw]

I do not look down on Buddha. I look horizontally. Thank you Diana Hignutt aka Diana, or just Di :-), bigb, and Bartholomew for your replies.

I am glad we utilized puppets on strings and not those with hands up their cavities.

Gehanna

Personally I don't look at him at all, that I'm aware of. We can all be so honest! :D

[Gehanna]

Einstein abandoned his first-born. I do not look down on him either. I am too cynical to put people on pedestals and too lazy to dig their graves.

Gehanna

[Rufus Coppertop]

Do you suppose Buddha gave cause for his wife and child to experience suffering when he left them? I find it worse than ignorant to abandon your progeny. Buddha's wife and child became his followers, but I wonder, what else might they have done? What were their circumstances and how may those circumstances have influenced their choices. Too much information remains lacking.

Some of you may think poorly of me for my scrutiny. Whether or not you do is irrelevant. This is because I firmly believe scrutiny shears the strings of self-imposed puppetry.

Gehanna

Is it actually scrutiny though? And if it is, what is being scrutinized apart from mythology?

Even for a buddhist who believes that the mythology is true or contains truth, is it not still mythology?

If we accept that Shakyamuni left Rahula and Yasodhara in a palace filled with royalty and servants, so that he could practice dharma and realize enlightenment, why not also accept that he descended from Tushita heaven in order to incarnate and realize enlightenment etc?

Whether he did or didn't leave his wife and son in a perfectly decent situation or descend from Tushita heaven or this or that, a foundation myth is necessary. If you want to have sutras and tantras, you need a divine mouth to have uttered those sutras and tantras.

There is neither information to be had, nor a lack of information. There is mythology.

Buddhism should stand or fall on the content of its teachings, not moral imputations projected onto ornamental details alleged in its foundation myth.

[zornhau]

Hang on, though, don't foundation myths embody moral viewpoints?

And, Einstein is a red-herring because we don't look to mathematicians and physicists to teach us morality.

[Ruv Draba]

Hang on, though, don't foundation myths embody moral viewpoints?Yep, though they're not all that do. Many of our stories about day to day life have morals too.

And, Einstein is a red-herring because we don't look to mathematicians and physicists to teach us morality.Some do though... quoting Einstein in polemics against war, for example:
I do not know how the third World War will be fought, but I can tell you what they will use in the Fourth – rocks!These days, just about any celebrity can be used for moral compass, no matter why they're famous. Einstein is an odd choice though, because he once declined the Presidency of Israel, saying:
I have neither the natural ability nor the experience to deal with human beings(At least he was honest. :D)

[Bartholomew]

Leaving a wife and son had entirely different implications for that society. From my understanding, that story was crafted to impress people from that era -- leaving a wife and child back then might have been more akin to leaving behind one's car and computer for a monastic life. Women were seen as tempting and desirable first and human beings second; children were seen as fetters to a materialistic life (In fact, Rahula's name means Fetter, or Chain, if memory serves).

For the Buddha to be a reputable teacher of moral ways in this era, this is a step he had to take.

Also, bear in mind that the Buddha never claimed to be a special entity. He knew he was human, and he told his followers as much.

[Ruv Draba]

I think it only matters if we want to worship people, rather than treat them as sources of possibly useful ideas.

[wrangler]

as always, a fine discussion.

[Bartholomew]

I think it only matters if we want to worship people, rather than treat them as sources of possibly useful ideas.

Well, people who dislike scientology will often discredit its founder before evaluating what scientologists believe. I don't think they worship Hubbard. (Do they?)

[Ruv Draba]

Well, people who dislike scientology will often discredit its founder before evaluating what scientologists believe. I don't think they worship Hubbard. (Do they?)People who promote faith often revere their founders to add authority to their claims. If they do that, they also court denigration and offence, since any skepticism or objection is therefore directed at the faith, its founding and founders.

An empirical view says that it doesn't matter where ideas came from; it's how we arrived at them and whether they can be shown to work. If we can adopt that view (and not all belief-systems can) then there's much less incentive to revere and denigrate people. That helps us (I think) get a clearer view of history and ideas...

But many belief-systems require reverence -- it's part of the discipline they teach, and considered beneficial and/or sacred. When that happens, then it's really hard to bring empirical discussion into the mix, because skepticism is often viewed as a profane attack on the sacred and revered.

I concluded long ago that outsiders can listen to insiders, but can't really talk to them unless they step outside their reverence. That being so, we can work out quite quickly how much conversation we can have with someone else. We don't have to be polite and keep listening if we've heard it before, and know that the other can't really hear what we're saying. And if the devout consider that unfair and closed-minded, we may have to live with that -- they may not see the impacts of their reverence and taboos on conversation.

[benbradley]

Well, people who dislike scientology will often discredit its founder before evaluating what scientologists believe. I don't think they worship Hubbard. (Do they?)
Worship might not be quite the correct word, but revere? Yes, absolutely. It happens in any "strong high-demand" organization, whether religious or secular (Scientology, despite calling itself a church, is IMHO secular).

Do you know a recovering alcoholic? Ask who Bill W. or Dr. Bob was, and notice the expression on their face as they talk.

[Ruv Draba]

Do you know a recovering alcoholic? Ask who Bill W. or Dr. Bob was, and notice the expression on their face as they talk.I know people who do the same with dieticians, personal trainers, financial advisers and Doctor Phil. Reverence is a very common human emotion; it extends well outside of the stuff we'd normally call religion. But the more esoteric the subject on which we're advised, the harder it is to know what it is we're actually dealing with -- the advice itself, or our emotions about it. (At least, that's true for me.)