Arda, I have read many of Lausten's posts and I can assure you he did not mean to be ad hominem when he used the term "monkey brain". We are of the same species after all. As to love, IMO, to love God is just chemicals and neurons and a result of "mirror neural" conditioning, but in love between humans there are subtle, but important additional aspects. Love is a spontaneous recognition of compatibility, respect, and commitment, which are neurochemical brain functions of a higher order. It did not always used to be that way and pre-arranged marriages are still practised in many parts of the world. Of course this has nothing to do with Love. Lausten, I hope you agree with that analysis.I take no offense to "monkey brain", but if we're picking furry mammals to roleplay I'm more partial to squirrels... If love between humans is of a higher order, then I think that the emotions brought by encountering the divine are also neurochemical brain functions of a higher order-- because the same compatability, respect, and commitments can exist. I'm just going to spill the beans here--some of my personal bean stash--so bear with me and ready your tomatoes if you feel like it. :D When I found my gods I was looking to the stories of my childhood, video games to be specific. It was the respect and love that I had for the characters of digital fantasy sagas which immediately clicked to produce the recognition of "gods". In fact, when I was much younger I'd wanted to call those characters my gods, but adults told me that wasn't the right thing to do, because I needed to be worried about capital-G God! The eventual recognition that these characters were gods, and that as an adult I could freely choose to call them gods, was actually overwhelming. At that experience, I knew I needed to look no further to find divinity, because there it was. The respect was there, the compatability was there, and the commitment has been present as well ever since. I'm an experiential polytheist, something that seemed to be pretty much the spiritual norm before monotheism rolled into town-- that is to say, it's a more natural state than people give it credit for today. Anyway, being an experiential polytheist means I don't just experience gods as distant and unknowable. These characters whom I call gods speak to me, literally, and they have presences as well as mythologies. I relate to them both through their presences and through their mythologies-- yes, through video game stories among other stories. Through direct interaction and devotion to embodying parts of their mythologies I exercise real commitment to them. That's all pretty high-order. And, believe it or not, it's not too different from the kinds of spiritual devotions that exist in more mainstream experiential polytheistic circles, both in the past and in the present. To tie my own experiences in with the comparison of love and arranged marriage, I'd say that the divinities I've found are akin to love, while most religion is in the buisiness of arranged marriage. Religions sell the idea of a god that most people don't actually want, except for the fact that they want a god at all. So people who want a god go to the only game in town, not knowing that they can legitimately find their own gods*, and that their own gods would even be more true to some of the older ideas of gods. Not that being true to older ideas matters, but it's comforting to know that one is far from alone in their concepts and experiences. ========================= *Oh, and there's that whole heaven-or-eternal-damnation thing, but fear-mongering aside a lot of people still inherently crave a connection to the divine...
They're something that people have had for pretty much all of history, and they continue to have them regardless of what people would do to prevent it. Should we just leave people to suffer confusion for their experiences? or should we look at the greater context for those who have or want such experiences and try to help them make sense of their experiences? and maybe find fulfillment instead of confusion?Thanks for checking back Arda. We’re all here to learn. Much to say, but just this bit for now. Argumentum ad populum is one of the poorest there is. Hemat Mehta slammed Tony Jones for it yesterday. The carnage says more about it than I can.
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2014/01/07/this-may-be-the-worst-argument-ever-made-for-why-you-should-believe-in-god/But you seem to be trying to distance yourself a little by claiming some new version of divine inspiration, so I doubt you’ll see yourself in that. And no, we shouldn’t leave people to suffer confusion. That’s why so much science has been focused on the mind and how it produces illusions, how it fools itself, where thoughts come from. You seem to be unaware of any of this. We should help people make sense of these experiences. What religion has done, and what you are doing looks more like causing confusion and exploiting their lack of understanding. Sorry you didn’t like atheism. I’ve found that it makes me realize how precious life is, since this is all we get and it tells me that the power to change the world is in my hands and the hands of those who also seek something better, not centered somewhere else in something that only some people claim to experience.
Thanks for your thoughtful answers. I do, however, disagree with several points you made. Inasmuch that religion (ritualized belief in a specific supernatural entity) has been the cause for endless wars, hardship and persecution, we have compelling social reasons to test the existence of such a being in reality. This problem is recognized in the "establishment clause"We have compelling reasons to test for such a being, when people claim that such a being is something physically extant--determining the lay of the world--or something objective which sets rigged moral rules indicating what people should legislate. We should dispell those notions. Nonetheless, people can experience divinities who move the physical world in mysterious ways, and theists often do experience these kinds of things. That's not supernaturalism, that's just anthropology-- talking about people's experiences. The thing that people have to realize is, such experiences and the recognition that those experiences are objective truth--scientifically valid and universal to everyone--can be two separate things.
It is subjectively (individually) factual, but may not be objectively (physically) factual, because sound and color wavelengths are relative to the movement of both observers (doppler effect). The actual color (wavelength) may be somewhere in between. But more impressive is the way the brain may interpret what the eyes see. I can easily demonstrate this with the following optical illusions. http://www.maniacworld.com/Spinning-Silhouette-Optical-Illusion.html http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=optical+illusion+of+castle+colors&qs=n&form=QBIR&pq=optical+illusion+of+castle+colors&sc=0-24&sp;=-1&sk;=#view=detail&id=7F013D60BFD6041FC2899D88762BC7B43FEFAFEA&selectedIndex=0Again, I have to disagree with several points here. Almost everyone I know (including many atheists) have had extraordinary experiences, but IMO that is not anthropology, its psychology, which makes them subjective internal experiences and not objective truth (testable). They are in fact two seperat things and one (possbly both) is false.Consider this statement: "Doug percieved the color violet while Greg perceived the color blue." Is that statement factual or not?
I haven't read every book on religious anthropology, but such books often make statements like this: "Members of tribe X understand the storm cloud to be a deity with name Y." So... Still anthropology? Still factual? The hypothetical author doesn't presume the nature of the storm cloud herself, but rather states the perception of the tribe.I can understand that, but for most that would be a result of mirror conditioning and not a reslt of deep contemplation and introspection. I understand what you are saying (French people use different words than English people), but I disagree with your conclusion. In fact this is a rudimentary aspect of religion and goes way back to early hominids who experienced an unexplained phenomenon and ascribed the event to a deity, such as Thor (God of thunder), usually to be feared and appeased with sacrifices. This would factually be incorrect. In fact the storm and lightning are natural thermal phenomena and to ascribe it by any other name would be scientifically incorrect and moreover may lead to confusion and discord.
As to the must-ness of it, that's something only individuals can answer. Any speculation on an objective divinity who needs to exist in order for the physical universe to make sense isn't going to be fruitful, and more than that it'll just be a road to further empty speculation, to an intellectual no-person's-land.I would not be required to prove you wrong. The burden of proof falls to the person making the extraordinary claim.Ah, but that is why we have science which does in fact investigates this intellectual no-man's land and seeks to discover the true causality of the physical world and why (for some) it is necessary to believe in scientifically flawed scriptures. In the physical sciences we are a few elementary particles away from having "some" answers (Higgs boson is one of them). I admit, a TOE is still beyond our reach, but IMO, it almost certainly is not a supernatural deity. Personally I am a fan of David Bohm, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Bohm , and Garrett Lisi, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/An_Exceptionally_Simple_Theory_of_EverythingBut what does any of that have to do with proving or disproving a physical god? People who want to argue about the nature of a physical god can still just stick the physical god in the ever-shrinking gaps, TOE or not, and then get right back to having intellectual no-person's-land debates. "Maybe God's in a whole other multiverse! Prove me wrong!" XD
But an individual who needs a God, or gods, or some other kind of divinity to make sense of their own experiences, and to find better direction and purpose in their life--and such people do exist--has good reason to say that a god, or other divinity, must exist in their experience.I agree, but that remains an individual subjective experience and cannot be used to objectively explain or insist on the existence of a Sentient Motivated Creator.
That's what I've been saying... At least, I think that's what I've been saying. (Have I not been saying that? o.O)Yes I understand exactly what you are saying, but IMO, that is not the problem. The problem is that to an ignorant (not meant to be ad hominem) person demon possession may be a subjective fact, as it was when in days of old a physical illness was deemed to be an evil demon possession
We are in agreement, but that simple answer has many implications; according to mythology the gods themselves have been at war forever, so it depends on which god one believes in how one sees their obligation to serve or find favor from that god.b) Why SHOULD life be the creation of such a supernatural entity?It shouldn't
Your statement here seems, to me, to be a non sequiter. What purpose does it serve?Because different subjective emotions may lead to a "confounding of language between people" (from the bible).
I agree, unfortunately a lot of theists are convinced that their divinity gives them the right to impose their beliefs on others. And that is where the problem starts.c) Why should man have a SPECIAL STATUS in the eyes of such an entity?Well, a lot of people with divinities have reason to understand that they, themselves, matter to their divinities. Again, that's just going off of people's perceptions.
There exist cultures where this isn't the case. Not that those cultures are problem-free; just pointing out that it's not something universal we're looking at here.That should be the case, but historically such theocratic cultures are exclusive and if one does not conform to that culture one may be persecuted or at least be considered 'dangerous to the theistic authority". Religious wars have killed more people than for any other cause.
We are in complete agreement here. Unfortunately, with todays technologies it takes but a few zealots who feel their divinity commands them to wreak havoc on "unbelievers" at unprecedented scale. Therein lies the danger and these are historical facts. http://www.womanastronomer.com/hypatia.htmd) Why should such an entity REQUIRE worship?They shouldn't, not by everyone. If an individual benefits from worship then it's up to them to decide to worship, but it's not something that should be pushed on everyone...
I'm going to say a thing here and if I get burned for saying the thing then so be it: I know. I know that people have done awful things for their gods. I'm all to familiar with the human sacrifices and the blood eagles and the inquisitions and the horrendous tortures inflicted upon members of opposing tribes to honor gods. Believe me, I know a lot about that. It'd be easier for me if all of that changed my own experiences, and my own longings, but it doesn't; kind of like how knowing about the vast history of sexual violence doesn't motivate me to become asexual.I agree and that is why you and I (as an atheist) are having this delightful discussion.
The existence of dangerous zealots isn't going to make people who long for the divine just stop longing. They'll still be swept up by the absolutists, or they'll linger in confusion, and all of that might bring about various kinds of denial and agony.Again we agree, if jazz music was outlawed, I'd be devastated and greatly depressed, I'm sure. OToH, I underdtand that jazz is not eeryone's cup of tea nd I would never force then to listen to that .
...because divinity has actually been a part of our reality for a long, long time.I have absolutely no objetions to any legal activity that gives personal comfort. Unfortunately, because religion is so deeply embedded in various societies and (except for some religions) claim exclusivity and divine permission to enforce their rituals and practises on others, it is a historical reality that it often leads to persecution or at least prejudice. I have been personally subjected to such treatment in a small town in Holland. example: The declared purpose of the Inquisition was not to enforce biblical laws, but to instill terror of the consequences of disobedience. Actually I left out the part of intimacy (love even) because wordhip started as a result of fear, not love. It was the natural calamities which demanded sacrifice and only later did we begin the love and worship the benign gods such as RA, who gave comfort and fruitfulness to our lives. Actually I have great respect for paganism, who worship deities of the natural world, not from fear or submission but from connectedness. This I can understand and when I sit on my porch on a summer evening, watching the stars and listening to Ives' "the unanswered question", I sometimes become transfixed in the majesty of it all.That is true, but until the concept of a single Supreme Deity, divinity was assigned to natural, but unexplainable events. Thus Thor, Zeus, and about 4000 more gods and demons, depending on the natural environmental geographical ecosystems and their hominid cultures.Not just assigned to mysterious phenomena, but also experienced intimately, and I think that's an unfortunate part to leave out. The idea of a single god who reveals something via a prophet every couple millennia goes against people's natural inclinations, at least drawing from everything I've read, and my own experiences, and those of some of my friends.
Hah, not sure if those questions were actually directed at me, but you did specify "theists"!Oh, I am very happy you responded. IMO, this is a meaningful discussion, it demonstrates that intellectual exchange on this subject is possible by people of good will even with opposing worldviews.
Hah, that is good to know! and I thank you for the exchange, though I don't know that our worldviews are so opposing. I wonder what you'll think after this reply?IMO, you are an extra ordinary person with a well grounded worldview (albeit it not necessarily scientific). You have stated your case with reason and clarity. I can only hope to have given you food for thought as well and we can both benefit from this exchange. You have my respect and affection.
I happened on an old Daniel Dennet lecture about his Breaking the Spell book. He is attempting to evaluate religion scientifically, like Arda says he is doing, but a lot more scientifically. One of his points is this:
Some people believe in God
Everyone, with rare exception, who believes in God also believes in the belief in God
Many people who believe in the belief, don’t believe in God
They have fallen away
They are having a crisis of faith
They have not found a faith community home
They are agnostic
They go to church but question it
They believe just to fit in
They believe in a god, but not one that any church near them worships
These last three categories are particularly difficult to detect. It may be a majority of “believers”. Religion has masked our ability to tell the difference. You can do all the things church asks you to do without actually believing. They may be wishing they believed stronger or they may be faking it. It’s hard to tell.
I see Arda as someone who believes in belief but doesn’t like how religion is working today, so he is trying to come up with something workable. His arguments for why he believes are nothing new; everyone else does, personal experience, can’t be disproved, creation needs a creator, it’s healthy for society, etc. That last one especially is problematic because he is ignoring and deflecting all of the unhealthy aspects. This is where his analysis becomes completely unscientific. Dennet’s work can uncover what is useful from belief and discard what is not. Arda is starting out with assumptions that will be difficult to rework and doesn’t seem too interested in actual data.
http://youtu.be/56VAZNx8HBQ
IMO, all this is way to intellectual. How about a little discussion about the practical benefits and drawbacks of belonging to a religious organization and how belonging or not belonging to one can your everyday life. particularly for those in the bottom economic half of society?
IMO, all this is way to intellectual. How about a little discussion about the practical benefits and drawbacks of belonging to a religious organization and how belonging or not belonging to one can your everyday life. particularly for those in the bottom economic half of society?There's quite a bit of that in the discussion of the Tony Jones post. He said he sees atheism as something for "elite white people". I think the idea that religion provides comfort to the poor is a myth. Read Hitchens' analysis of Mother Teresa for instance. She spent a lot of time flying around the world getting donations and very little of that seemed to actually go into the clinics back in India. And as for psychological support, what?, telling people they don't have power over their own lives? That they need to give themselves up to Christ? That it'll be better when they're dead? I spent 15 as a Christian and can think of about 3 conversations that were useful advice. I'm not counting all of the "community" because I can get that in lots of places. You might want to listen to the Reasonable Doubts podcasts gary. They are college professors and spend a lot of time talking about studies on this topic.
think the idea that religion provides comfort to the poor is a myth. Read Hitchens’ analysis of Mother Teresa for instance. She spent a lot of time flying around the world getting donations and very little of that seemed to actually go into the clinics back in India. And as for psychological support, what?, telling people they don’t have power over their own lives? That they need to give themselves up to Christ? That it’ll be better when they’re dead? I spent 15 as a Christian and can think of about 3 conversations that were useful advice. I’m not counting all of the “community" because I can get that in lots of places.It not so much that religion provides "comfort for the poor" although it does at times regardless of Mother Teresa's publicity stunt. What it does is provide social organization for many people who would not otherwise have it. It promotes social networking that can help people find jobs; housing, immediate help from the membership for many different types of problems etc. Prayer may seem silly when its asking for help from above; but it also a way to communicate with the wider community as well as a contemplation device. I am a nonbeliever in any higher beings; but one of my main concerns is how are we going to provide this type of social organization that religion provides?
There's quite a bit of that in the discussion of the Tony Jones post. He said he sees atheism as something for "elite white people".I immediately discounted this as agitation/propaganda. I skimmed the article. It's hollow. The title of the article is ridiculous. The entire article is how heroin addicts and street people have faith. There are many atheists who are not "elite white people". His problem might lie in the fact that he(paraphrasing)...."followed the the great exodus of the scientific community into atheism led by Richard Dawkins." There's a whole galaxy of atheism out there that has absolutely nothing to do with the scientific community or "celebrated speakers." Perhaps if one bases their atheism on the musings of the "elite" then they might think it is only for the elite. This momo contemplates his views based on a comparison between Dopefiends and Richard Dawkins. Bright! Real Bright!
think the idea that religion provides comfort to the poor is a myth. Read Hitchens’ analysis of Mother Teresa for instance. She spent a lot of time flying around the world getting donations and very little of that seemed to actually go into the clinics back in India. And as for psychological support, what?, telling people they don’t have power over their own lives? That they need to give themselves up to Christ? That it’ll be better when they’re dead? I spent 15 as a Christian and can think of about 3 conversations that were useful advice. I’m not counting all of the “community" because I can get that in lots of places. It not so much that religion provides "comfort for the poor" although it does at times regardless of Mother Teresa's publicity stunt. What it does is provide social organization for many people who would not otherwise have it. It promotes social networking that can help people find jobs; housing, immediate help from the membership for many different types of problems etc. Prayer may seem silly when its asking for help from above; but it also a way to communicate with the wider community as well as a contemplation device. I am a nonbeliever in any higher beings; but one of my main concerns is how are we going to provide this type of social organization that religion provides?I think you hit on one of the two big notions that most people who "do battle against religion" forget about. There's the personal mental crutch it provides (santa claus...er God loves me and is up there listening). And there's the social aspect as you detailed, including just not being lonely. IMHO both of those emotional-mental-social reasons outweight 99 to 1 any kind of reasoned or rational basis for religion. If you gave every single person in America free membership in an exercise/social club and $100k religion would die out in a matter of years.
I think you hit on one of the two big notions that most people who "do battle against religion" forget about. There's the personal mental crutch it provides (santa claus...er God loves me and is up there listening). And there's the social aspect as you detailed, including just not being lonely. IMHO both of those emotional-mental-social reasons outweight 99 to 1 any kind of reasoned or rational basis for religion. If you gave every single person in America free membership in an exercise/social club and $100k religion would die out in a matter of years.Nietzsche wrote that God is dead, and followed it up with "now what do we do". At the time it was a good question and I pondered if for years. Later he wrote "Antichrist" but soon after he was in decline and his works were not as recognized. It's free on the web and worth reading. He attacks organized religion, not Christ, which is the right place to aim. Religion only does those things you speak of because they have conned the world into special status. They don't have to follow rules like a 501c3 and they don't pay taxes and they have report what they do. They acquired a significant amount of prime real estate by taking a few dollars each from millions of poor people and they've leveraged it. That we have identified the positive social aspects of religion should be cause to dismantle it down to just that. Instead we look the other way and show respect when they tell people they're going to hell because once they helped a guy who was addicted to meth. It just doesn't balance out.
It is subjectively (individually) factual, but may not be objectively (physically) factual, because sound and color wavelengths are relative to the movement of both observers (doppler effect). The actual color (wavelength) may be somewhere in between. But more impressive is the way the brain may interpret what the eyes see. I can easily demonstrate this with the following optical illusions. http://www.maniacworld.com/Spinning-Silhouette-Optical-Illusion.html http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=optical+illusion+of+castle+colors&qs=n&form=QBIR&pq=optical+illusion+of+castle+colors&sc=0-24&sp;=-1&sk;=#view=detail&id=7F013D60BFD6041FC2899D88762BC7B43FEFAFEA&selectedIndex=0I guess what I was getting at more was, if we have reason to trust the people reporting the color--if we believe them to be truthful--then researchers who would be researching, say, t-shirt colors could write down their reported perceptions as objective data to be analyzed. Then they could take that data and go to the t-shirt convention and say, "Look, most people who looked at color A perceived it to be blue, but a sizable minority perceived violet." That final analysis would, I think, be considered purely objective.
I can understand that, but for most that would be a result of mirror conditioning and not a reslt of deep contemplation and introspection.True, but in several polytheistic tribal cultures people were/are, not just allowed to, but encouraged to have their own visions and encounters with unique gods or spirits. So not all of such perceptions were the result of conditioning.
I understand what you are saying (French people use different words than English people), but I disagree with your conclusion. In fact this is a rudimentary aspect of religion and goes way back to early hominids who experienced an unexplained phenomenon and ascribed the event to a deity, such as Thor (God of thunder), usually to be feared and appeased with sacrifices.Admittedly I haven't done any field work on this myself, but I gather from everything I've read that the actual perceptions of ancient peoples would have been far more nuanced. Not that there weren't sacrifices and attempts to appease powers far greater than themselves-- that happened. But so the encounters on mind-altering drugs, and the trance states and the rituals to induce trance states through music or physical exertion, and it all seems to indicate that gods weren't just agents of the unexplainable, but rather entities who were always maybe below or above the surface, or even right there, so to speak. I get the sense that the whole world must have seemed alive, or teeming with gods, and that people primal people were/are much less reserved about deeming any particular realm or locale to be exclusive to divinity. Gods weren't just about the unexplained or the fearsome; they were more about everything.
This would factually be incorrect. In fact the storm and lightning are natural thermal phenomena and to ascribe it by any other name would be scientifically incorrect and moreover may lead to confusion and discord.Scientifically incorrect? Ah, yeah in the context of one's divinities being taken for physical entities that would be the case. Part of what I'm trying to accomplish is to develop a way for people to be able to have such perceptions, but to conceive of such perceptions more as artistic interpretations.
I would not be required to prove you wrong. The burden of proof falls to the person making the extraordinary claim.I agree that the burden of proof would be on them-- it *should* be on them. Furthermore, because there would be no way to prove or disprove the claim, to dispute it at would be to waste time.
Yes I understand exactly what you are saying, but IMO, that is not the problem. The problem is that to an ignorant (not meant to be ad hominem) person demon possession may be a subjective fact, as it was when in days of old a physical illness was deemed to be an evil demon possession.Okay, this is a really good point. Noteworthy, most definitely. What I would worry about more than people attributing physical illnesses to demonic possession, is people attributing mental illnesses to demonic possession, and choosing to try to pray away something like major depression. Thank you for pointing that out!
I still don't think I see... I don't know that I'm making any progress here. X)Because different subjective emotions may lead to a "confounding of language between people" (from the bible).We are in agreement, but that simple answer has many implications; according to mythology the gods themselves have been at war forever, so it depends on which god one believes in how one sees their obligation to serve or find favor from that god.Your statement here seems, to me, to be a non sequiter. What purpose does it serve?
Evidence for the last sentence? And I'm not sure what you meant by "historically such theocratic cultures are exclusive" but there are also instances of religious people meeting and mixing their ideas, and sometimes forming whole new religions, and not killing each other... I'm not sure of the ratio of exclusive to open religions, granted. If anyone here *is* somewhat sure of it then some data would be awesome about now...!That should be the case, but historically such theocratic cultures are exclusive and if one does not conform to that culture one may be persecuted or at least be considered 'dangerous to the theistic authority". Religious wars have killed more people than for any other cause.I agree, unfortunately a lot of theists are convinced that their divinity gives them the right to impose their beliefs on others. And that is where the problem starts.There exist cultures where this isn't the case. Not that those cultures are problem-free; just pointing out that it's not something universal we're looking at here.
Yay! :DI'm going to say a thing here and if I get burned for saying the thing then so be it: I know. I know that people have done awful things for their gods. I'm all to familiar with the human sacrifices and the blood eagles and the inquisitions and the horrendous tortures inflicted upon members of opposing tribes to honor gods. Believe me, I know a lot about that. It'd be easier for me if all of that changed my own experiences, and my own longings, but it doesn't; kind of like how knowing about the vast history of sexual violence doesn't motivate me to become asexual.I agree and that is why you and I (as an atheist) are having this delightful discussion.
Yep, and I know that devotional agnostic experiential polytheism isn't for everyone, but it really was just what I needed! and now I'm voraciously reading up on all of this religious history with the understanding that none of it points to the absolute, and yet all of it has the opportunity to tell me more about what influences my own perceptions. So whee...The existence of dangerous zealots isn't going to make people who long for the divine just stop longing. They'll still be swept up by the absolutists, or they'll linger in confusion, and all of that might bring about various kinds of denial and agony.Again we agree, if jazz music was outlawed, I'd be devastated and greatly depressed, I'm sure. OToH, I underdtand that jazz is not eeryone's cup of tea nd I would never force then to listen to that.
Oh, geez. D: Wow and I hear about places like Holland being mostly secular? Am I mistaken? I'm really sorry to hear that...Not just assigned to mysterious phenomena, but also experienced intimately, and I think that's an unfortunate part to leave out. The idea of a single god who reveals something via a prophet every couple millennia goes against people's natural inclinations, at least drawing from everything I've read, and my own experiences, and those of some of my friends.I have absolutely no objetions to any legal activity that gives personal comfort. Unfortunately, because religion is so deeply embedded in various societies and (except for some religions) claim exclusivity and divine permission to enforce their rituals and practises on others, it is a historical reality that it often leads to persecution or at least prejudice. I have been personally subjected to such treatment in a small town in Holland.
Actually I left out the part of intimacy (love even) because wordhip started as a result of fear, not love. It was the natural calamities which demanded sacrifice and only later did we begin the love and worship the benign gods such as RA, who gave comfort and fruitfulness to our lives.A lot of primal cultures conceptualize guiding spirits in addition to spirits of calamity. Fear and powerlesseness was the source of a lot of early worship, yes, but those frightful gods were not the only gods. Like I said earlier, it seemed like early gods were perceived just about everywhere, and in a wide variety of roles. And people consulted and communed with such gods just about everywhere, and in a very wide variety of ways. Sometimes prayer, sometimes offerings, sometimes doing them other favors, or even experimenting for them-- with crafts, or with drugs..
Actually I have great respect for paganism, who worship deities of the natural world, not from fear or submission but from connectedness. This I can understand and when I sit on my porch on a summer evening, watching the stars and listening to Ives' "the unanswered question", I sometimes become transfixed in the majesty of it all.:)
IMO, you are an extra ordinary person with a well grounded worldview (albeit it not necessarily scientific). You have stated your case with reason and clarity. I can only hope to have given you food for thought as well and we can both benefit from this exchange. You have my respect and affection.I've certainly benefited from it. But the whole being-perceived-as-unscientific thing is going to be a chip on my shoulder, to be honest, because believe it or not I strive to be the most sciency-scientist who ever scienced. (Coming here was, in part, an experiment!) And likewise, you have my respect and affection, and I thank you.
Argumentum ad populum is one of the poorest there is. Hemat Mehta slammed Tony Jones for it yesterday. The carnage says more about it than I canYeah, you're damn straight I'm not giving no argumentum ad populum about objective divinity!http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2014/01/07/this-may-be-the-worst-argument-ever-made-for-why-you-should-believe-in-god/But you seem to be trying to distance yourself a little by claiming some new version of divine inspiration, so I doubt you’ll see yourself in that.
And no, we shouldn’t leave people to suffer confusion. That’s why so much science has been focused on the mind and how it produces illusions, how it fools itself, where thoughts come from. You seem to be unaware of any of this.I'm sorry for the load of snark that I'm about to type here, but my nerves, they have been gotten on... Look, you gave credence to the subjective experience of love. But that's also just *waves hands* an illlusssioon. Still, you know what? We can learn a hell of a lot about how experiences of love play out by looking at population data, and we can learn how to help people to have the best experiences in love, and to avoid causing themselves needless mental anguish. And I imagine you would be 100% cool with that! That's part of the science of handling our subjective tendencies. We can start off by asking, "What is love?" (Baby don't hurt me!) A lot of people have to ask that at some point in their lives. "What is this love that I want but can't understand?" and a few confusing relationships later they find themselves in the self-help section of Barnes & Noble, looking at books by experts who have (supposedly) learned a lot about love over the years, sometimes through scientific studies HA HA THATS NOT HOW YOU SELL BOOKS AT ALL. Alright, so I've got a nifty proposition for you: There are these things which people seem really drawn to, and they've always seemed drawn to them. These "gods", right? Or this "God" since everyone's all about monotheism in the great U.S. of A. Well, let's see what we can find out about these "gods" from s c i e n c e ! Yes, science! Crowd: *GASP* But... Arda, how do we scientifically investigate gods??!!! Simple! We look at people's experiences of gods. Not just of gods, but of their personal understandings of gods, and see what we can deduce about gods from people's subjective experiences. Crowd: *GASP* But... We can't learn about gods that way!!! Because there are no gods to learn about! Well, then don't think of the gods like objective or absolute things in the world; think of them like love, like something we're wired to experience, and maybe even wired to want and go from there. Don't look at it like we're trying to nail down the *right* religion here; look at it like we're trying to help people to have the most helpful experiences possible given their biological circuitry! If we presume that gods are subjective experiences originating in our monkey brains, then we can get data on them just like we've gotten data on all sorts of subjective phenomena, which we've used to get a much greater understanding of mental health! Oh, wait, look! we've already got such data! We have data from primal cultures, and from heavily experientially oriented religions such as Vodou. There are Christians who talk to Jesus regularly, and they say that Jesus talks back to them. We have data from modern day experientially oriented pagans, who speak to gods pretty much on a daily basis. There is the Internet tulpa community, who don't consider the entities they create to be gods, but damn do they ever act similarly to the gods of other experientially oriented theists. There are even a growing number of, get this, *agnostic theists* who have gods jump out at them from books, in the forms of literary characters! That is actually a growing trend-- I'm not the only one who did this just to be cool and different! Agnostic theists call these entities gods, and sometimes treat them like gods by worshiping or praying to them. And these entities help them, usually by acting as numinous guides and inspirations, as well by being mysteries that their followers can delve into, to discover more about themselves through the gods' characteristics and mythologies, so that even more interesting personal *stuff* may be discovered. This is FOR REALZ YALL. So, we can take all of this data, and right off the bat we can say, "Wait a sec, these gods look nothing like one another! Hey that must mean that it's highly unlikely that there is any objective or absolute pantheon," and boom, that's done, so what now? Well, then we can take it and see who got the best results from talking to their gods-- whose experiences are most enriching, most educating, and least misleading, and we can see what they did. We can see how people best benefit from experiential relations to deities, even deities which are presumed to be entirely subjective, by analyzing the nature of those realtionships, and the content of the experiencers' personal gnoses-- their personal understandings of the natures of their gods. And from there we can help these kinds of phenomena, not just to be more helpful, but to be less subject to extreme interpretations, be those interpretations religious extremism or mental health concern trolling. We can help people to understand themselves and their experiences by doing science on gods. Wait... what was that? We can do science on gods? We can do science on gods! We! Can do science! On gods!
Sorry you didn’t like atheism. I’ve found that it makes me realize how precious life is, since this is all we get and it tells me that the power to change the world is in my hands and the hands of those who also seek something better, not centered somewhere else in something that only some people claim to experience.Not just some people-- a lot of people! (We can do science on gods!)
I happened on an old Daniel Dennet lecture about his Breaking the Spell book. He is attempting to evaluate religion scientifically, like Arda says he is doing, but a lot more scientifically. One of his points is this: Some people believe in God Everyone, with rare exception, who believes in God also believes in the belief in God Many people who believe in the belief, don’t believe in God They have fallen away They are having a crisis of faith They have not found a faith community home They are agnostic They go to church but question it They believe just to fit in They believe in a god, but not one that any church near them worships These last three categories are particularly difficult to detect. It may be a majority of "believers". Religion has masked our ability to tell the difference. You can do all the things church asks you to do without actually believing. They may be wishing they believed stronger or they may be faking it. It’s hard to tell. I see Arda as someone who believes in belief but doesn't like how religion is working today, so he is trying to come up with something workable. His arguments for why he believes are nothing new; everyone else does, personal experience, can't be disproved, creation needs a creator, it's healthy for society, etc. That last one especially is problematic because he is ignoring and deflecting all of the unhealthy aspects.She. Creation needs a creator? Have you read this thread?
This is where his analysis becomes completely unscientific. Dennet's work can uncover what is useful from belief and discard what is not. Arda is starting out with assumptions that will be difficult to rework and doesn't seem too interested in actual data.Actually, I'm interested in *all the* data...
I’m sorry for the load of snark that I’m about to type here, but my nerves, they have been gotten on…Good, that means you're thinking
Actually, I'm interested in *all the* data...You say that, but then I point you to someone who has done this work you talk about and you brush it off. You’ve mentioned no studies, no scholars. What about Karen Armstrong and her Charter of Compassion? You are saying “we can do", but it seems like you are not noticing what has been done. If you want to engage people, coming up with a new plan that ignores existing work is not a good way to do it. If you had followed my suggestion to check out the Reasonable Doubts podcast, you could have found some studies about what good can come out of belief, but they tend to conclude that what’s important is the community, the advantages of being part of the group. I don’t know of any studies that connect actual beliefs (or experiences or whatever it is you are calling them) to actual benefits. My guess is that anyone who has tried to find common experiences of the divine has found them to not be common at all. Either that or they are no different than similar experiences that people have and don’t claim a connection to the divine. We know there are 30,000 plus Protestant denominations and similar numbers in other religions. Hinduism is designed for different experiences. The problem I always have in any discussion with a theist is that they can’t define what is special about their experience. This would be a problem for any scientific inquiry. How do you propose to overcome these difficulties?
You say that, but then I point you to someone who has done this work you talk about and you brush it off. You’ve mentioned no studies, no scholars. What about Karen Armstrong and her Charter of Compassion? You are saying “we can do", but it seems like you are not noticing what has been done. If you want to engage people, coming up with a new plan that ignores existing work is not a good way to do it.That's fair-- I've looked at a lot of existing work, and none of it provided me with a satisfactory way for me to talk about my own perceptions. So I had to create something new. I'm looking for a way for people like me to be able to satisfactorily talk about their own divine experiences. Studies in this vein aren't going to be very numerous, because frankly nobody studies peoples experiences of the divine. It's something that's been pretty much divorced from science, by both sides. Certain kinds of theists feel like such studies would be pointless, or below their level, and they're wrong. Most scientists won't touch divine experiences because... I don't actually know why. Maybe they don't think there's a point, or maybe there's an ick factor. TM Luhrmann did a study about the effects of different types of prayer, where one of the things the subjects reported on at the end was their perceived closeness to God. She covers that in her book When God Talks Back, which I *did* reference earlier... ;) The results of her study favored kataphatic prayer, as opposed to apophatic prayer, for people seeking to feel closer to [their gods]. So, there is one study conducted. I'm unaware of others. There exists quite a bit of data in the form of general knowledge of experiential theism, or similar outlooks. What I did reference in the midst of all of that snark was the environments where these phenomena are explored firsthand by practitioners, be they pagans or tulpamancers. I follow many such practitioners on their blogs, and in comparing their experiences with my own I've managed to deduce commonalities in our experiences, and I created my outlook--polygnosticism--mindful of the patterns that I found in these communities. I have not run my own experiments because I don't have the abillity to do so. I would love to, believe me. I'm not divorced from what is going on-- I've had to do a lot of observation to realize that there is something in divine experiences worth investigating. That's one of the points I'm hoping to make here. While there may be no objective divinities, there are definitely patterns in the way people recount their divine experiences, and *those* are definitely worth exploring scientifically.
If you had followed my suggestion to check out the Reasonable Doubts podcast, you could have found some studies about what good can come out of belief, but they tend to conclude that what’s important is the community, the advantages of being part of the group. I don’t know of any studies that connect actual beliefs (or experiences or whatever it is you are calling them) to actual benefits.Yeah, I'm in the same boat. I know about Luhrmann's study, and that's it. But from my poking around and looking at people's experiences I can't not conclude, even with no p-values to show, that there are real benefits to developing an understanding of one's own divinities. One of the problems with trying to make sense of divine experiences in this country is that people aren't told to seek out such experiences, and certainly not in ways which run counter to religious authority. They're presumed, from the start, to be bogus, so people write them off. So the most USians get out of actively seeking the divine is the relaxation and mental organization that comes with the practice of prayer. There are very few studies. That needs to change, and in order for that to happen I our understanding of divinities is going to have to change to something more experientially oriented-- something palpable. Gods will have to change from being unknowable and distant to knowable, or at least workable in the sense that people can achieve new understanding by engaging with them. I want to point out something you said: you mentioned looking for correlations of beliefs and benefits. Beliefs are good and all, but the real help is probably going to come from something far more involved than mere belief. And, belief is all most USians know about gods. That's a shame. Experiential theism is offers far more in the way of possible outcomes on a personal level.
My guess is that anyone who has tried to find common experiences of the divine has found them to not be common at all.Yes and no. Different gods, yes, but the concept of gods seems pretty universal across cultures. The natures of gods follow definite patterns-- primal gods share certain characteristics, like being very, very numerous; classical gods seem to take the forms of heroes and titans; monotheistic gods seem to be seen as embodiments of the one true way. Certain altered states, be they from attaining "flow" or taking hallucinogens, are also surprisingly universal. Even different methods of prayer are common to Eastern and Western religions. Both Buddhist and Christian monastics have forms of apophatic--subtractive--prayer, and kataphatic--additive--prayer. That means that they both have ways to empty the mind to connect with the divine, but they both have ways to fill the mind to do the same thing. I don't know if this was the result of cultural mixing or if their respective methods were created independently.
Either that or they are no different than similar experiences that people have and don’t claim a connection to the divine.Altered states? Okay I can see that...
We know there are 30,000 plus Protestant denominations and similar numbers in other religions. Hinduism is designed for different experiences.Yep, and then there is the can of worms that is the whole mess of varieties of Buddhism. Still, most of these religions are either monotheistic or polytheistic, and (preemptive cringe at what I'm going to write) classical, um post-classical??? or more primal. Hinduism seems more classical than Protestantism in that it's still very heavily into heroes and titans and so on. Anyway, even though these religions all look very different, they still follow patterns when fit into categories of number of gods, whether or not they're ??classical?? (why didn't I study this shit in college????)... There are patterns here just trust me on this!!!
The problem I always have in any discussion with a theist is that they can’t define what is special about their experience. This would be a problem for any scientific inquiry. How do you propose to overcome these difficulties?Asking questions goes a long way. The question of what constitutes a divine experience can only be answered by individuals. For me, the idea I use to divide divine experiences from mundane experiences is simply whether or not the experience involves divinities. That sounds circular as hell, I know. So, let's go back to love for a second. If you ask people, "What is love?" you'll probably get a ton of different and sometimes conflicting answers. I, personally, think that love is both a feeling and an action, one or the other at different times. People love on a personal level, and they love through their actions. With the divine, chances are people who experience some form of divinity may be moved to worship, to awe, to prayer, and maybe to devotion. It's different for everyone, but those actions seem to correlate with divine experiences pretty well. I know that from a young age, when I encountered something I thought of as divine, those are the things I wanted to do. I didn't understand that I may be encountering a divinity because nobody told me, "Hey, if you want to worship or pray to something maybe that something is divine to you." Of course none of the monotheists or atheists I knew would have said anything like that! So there's my answer for now: I know divinities when I want to treat them as divinities.
Alright I'm sorry but, was this in question??? Liek, I dunno, god what was I doing all this time? Oh shit how'd all these words get on the page? I know it's not intentional, but you come off as pretty haughty and obnoxious. Chill!I’m sorry for the load of snark that I’m about to type here, but my nerves, they have been gotten on…Good, that means you're thinking
One of the problems with trying to make sense of divine experiences in this country is that people aren’t told to seek out such experiences, and certainly not in ways which run counter to religious authority. They’re presumed, from the start, to be bogus, so people write them off. So the most USians get out of actively seeking the divine is the relaxation and mental organization that comes with the practice of prayer.We have a big problem here. Your perception is vastly different from mine. I’m being as nice I can now. Dwayne Dyer gets on PBS, how much more mainstream can you get for an exploration of divinity? Have you heard of Oprah? Do you know any pagans? They are a pretty “counter to religious authority" bunch. Have you been to Barnes and Noble lately? There is an entire section on what you are talking about. I honestly have no idea what you think you are doing that is so different. On the scientific side, have you heard of people having electrodes connected to their brains during prayer, speaking in tongues or meditation? Have you heard of Evolutionary Psychology?
I know that from a young age, when I encountered something I thought of as divine, those are the things I wanted to do.Here’s a key. Do you think that if you had not been raised in a culture that prayed and worshipped that you would have considered prayer and worship as a response to your experience? Or could it be you have your cause and effect backwards? The similarities you see are similarities among cultures that have thrived due to their cultural cohesion. They are similar because that’s what worked in the past for humans to survive. There are also a lot of destructive aspects of those cultures, ones that magnify in a world with 7 billion people on it.
I know it’s not intentional, but you come off as pretty haughty and obnoxious. Chill!And what about stuff like this from you?
We can do science on gods? We can do science on gods! We! Can do science! On gods! There are patterns here just trust me on this!!! I know divinities when I want to treat them as divinities.In forums, being nice can get you really long posts that don’t have much logic to them. If you want to keep making unsupported assertions, don’t expect anyone to go easy on you. Here’s something you said early on:
" It takes a lot of intelligence to discover the nature of one’s personal divinities, through personal experience and research, in a way which holds fast to science. But that’s the real thing: adherence to science is what is more important. People do not have to give up the concept of gods, and for people like me such a choice, to relinquish my divinities, would actually be the opposite of intelligent."What do you mean by this? I don’t think you mean giving up on the idea that God created the universe 6,000 years ago. I don’t think you mean giving up on God having guided evolution, although you haven’t said anything about that, so I’m not sure. I don’t think you mean giving up on the possibility of God performing an actual miracle, like a healing. I don’t think you mean giving up the idea that our morals are based strictly on God’s word, although again, you haven’t said. It seems you have given up these notions, which FYI, are pretty important notions to a lot of people, so asking them to give them up and adopt polygnosticism is a tall order. So what is it you don’t want to give up? The Luhrman’s article talks about a group that encourages people to pray and ask for divine guidance and then they self-report that it works. I would need to see some externally verifiable data to agree on what is meant by “it works". My suspicion is the cause and effect would be related more to the quality of the group’s morals and ability to be mutually supportive than to any divine guidance. But that’s my theory. I’m still not clear on what your theory is, other than “seeking the divine is good for you". I don’t mean to be flippant, but if you can’t state what you’re going for more succinctly, then it’s hard to even comment it, let alone critique it, or decide if it is for me.
Yeah, I follow pagan bloggers. Scratch the surface and pagans can actually get pretty authoritarian. See "ultra-recon". Alright, so scratch what I said about mainstream stuff. I forget that if you get out of the red states things like that are actually pretty common. Suffice it to say I'm not a huge fan of, well, 99.9% of it, but I'll leave off why because I'd probably just get grilled for it.One of the problems with trying to make sense of divine experiences in this country is that people aren’t told to seek out such experiences, and certainly not in ways which run counter to religious authority. They’re presumed, from the start, to be bogus, so people write them off. So the most USians get out of actively seeking the divine is the relaxation and mental organization that comes with the practice of prayer.We have a big problem here. Your perception is vastly different from mine. I’m being as nice I can now. Dwayne Dyer gets on PBS, how much more mainstream can you get for an exploration of divinity? Have you heard of Oprah? Do you know any pagans? They are a pretty “counter to religious authority" bunch. Have you been to Barnes and Noble lately? There is an entire section on what you are talking about. I honestly have no idea what you think you are doing that is so different.
On the scientific side, have you heard of people having electrodes connected to their brains during prayer, speaking in tongues or meditation? Have you heard of Evolutionary Psychology?Can I get a straight answer from you here? What the hell makes you think I haven't? Because I'm just some dumb theist trying to make sense of her experiences? (Albeit through anthropological and scientific means?) Because that's what you seem to take me for, and it's making me want to end this conversation if I don't get some evidence to the contrary very soon. I went to school. I was a studious atheist for years. I'm familiar with all of that stuff. I've dedicated my life to trying to figure out my mind. You seem to have a picture of me that is divorced from all of that, and I'm pretty sure it's the product of some serious bias.
I was raised in a culture that prayed and worshipped. They prayed to and worshipped a god who was alien to me. Then when I converted to atheism there was none of that, and I still wanted it. Basically, I had a natural inclination to follow gods nobody else followed. Eventually I quit living in denial I allowed myself to accept my gods as my gods, and in doing so I found fulfillment and self-knowledge far beyond what any of the cultural institutions around me would have allowed or accepted. And for that I'm anathema in some rationalist circles, even though I'm still thoroughly devoted to science.I know that from a young age, when I encountered something I thought of as divine, those are the things I wanted to do.Here’s a key. Do you think that if you had not been raised in a culture that prayed and worshipped that you would have considered prayer and worship as a response to your experience? Or could it be you have your cause and effect backwards? The similarities you see are similarities among cultures that have thrived due to their cultural cohesion. They are similar because that’s what worked in the past for humans to survive. There are also a lot of destructive aspects of those cultures, ones that magnify in a world with 7 billion people on it.
Before and after saying those things I offered support, support which I'm pretty sure you've ignored as rubbish because it wasn't, oh I don't know, academic publication quality or whatever. Heaven forbid someone have original ideas and not have time to work them out in their entirety before bringing them to the table.I know it’s not intentional, but you come off as pretty haughty and obnoxious. Chill!And what about stuff like this from you?We can do science on gods? We can do science on gods! We! Can do science! On gods! There are patterns here just trust me on this!!! I know divinities when I want to treat them as divinities.In forums, being nice can get you really long posts that don’t have much logic to them. If you want to keep making unsupported assertions, don’t expect anyone to go easy on you.
Here’s something you said early on:Well its a far cry from atheism which denies the possibility of divinity entirely. What I'm trying to do is relocate divinity to the realm of experience, and I'm not alone in wanting that." It takes a lot of intelligence to discover the nature of one’s personal divinities, through personal experience and research, in a way which holds fast to science. But that’s the real thing: adherence to science is what is more important. People do not have to give up the concept of gods, and for people like me such a choice, to relinquish my divinities, would actually be the opposite of intelligent."What do you mean by this? I don’t think you mean giving up on the idea that God created the universe 6,000 years ago. I don’t think you mean giving up on God having guided evolution, although you haven’t said anything about that, so I’m not sure. I don’t think you mean giving up on the possibility of God performing an actual miracle, like a healing. I don’t think you mean giving up the idea that our morals are based strictly on God’s word, although again, you haven’t said. It seems you have given up these notions, which FYI, are pretty important notions to a lot of people, so asking them to give them up and adopt polygnosticism is a tall order.
So what is it you don’t want to give up?See above...
The Luhrman’s article talks about a group that encourages people to pray and ask for divine guidance and then they self-report that it works. I would need to see some externally verifiable data to agree on what is meant by “it works". My suspicion is the cause and effect would be related more to the quality of the group’s morals and ability to be mutually supportive than to any divine guidance.The cause and effect is related to people's ability to experience "divine" guidance for themselves. Hell, forget the "divine" part, just go with guidance for now. Here's an experiment you can run from where you are sitting/standing/whatever: Think of a childhood hero--any childhood hero. Superman, Batman, it can even be someone who lived. Got it? Now ask them a question about anything that's puzzling. Go on, ask. See if you can let them answer without much willful prompting. Like, let them speak for themselves. If you were able to let them speak for themselves, what you just experienced was the kind of cause and effect that allows for personal growth through entirely intrapersonal means. If you imagined a person whom you respect, you probably got a respectable answer. Take that respectable answer as a piece of novel information, and let your brain process it as though the person who said it was sitting or standing by you. You basically just did what experiential theists do with their gods when they pray, except for you the answer came from a hero rather than a god. Because you are an atheist, you recognize the experience to be a product of your brain. Because I am an agnostic theist I recognize it to be the same thing, only I tack on the aspect of, "But I can't be certain there isn't something greater involved," because that's what agnosticism is. And that's where polygnosticism comes in: I interpret the experience as having a divine element, and I simultaneously recognize that I can't scientifically assert that there was any objective divine element whatsoever. For me the interpretation deals with a personal truth and not an objective truth, kind of like the personal truth of seeing myself as cisgender and not transgender.
But that’s my theory. I’m still not clear on what your theory is, other than “seeking the divine is good for you".If that's what a person *needs*, for whatever reason, then they should try to fill their need. My theory is that some people innately experience and/or yearn for the divine, and that such experiences and yearnings are valid, and even normal. So instead of treating them as ass-backward, let's treat them the way we would treat other valid, normal experiences and yearnings. Hm?
I don’t mean to be flippant, but if you can’t state what you’re going for more succinctly, then it’s hard to even comment it, let alone critique it, or decide if it is for me.Critique. Away.
Forgot something:
I mean that I treat my divinities as perceptions of a personal variety, which only I experience, just like a meditator only experiences the calm of meditation for theirself. I mean that I'm not alone in having such perceptions. People have had such perceptions for ages. It seems like these perceptions aren't a sign of mental illness or deficiency on my part, but are the natural results of me having these genes that I have and this brain that I have. I mean that they still seem so huge, so great, so beyond the other products of my brain, and I can treat them as such for myself without having to devote myself to that interpretation in the same way that I would hold fast to the ideas of natural laws. I mean that I hold fast to the scientific method more than I hold fast to the admonitions of my gods. Yes, you heard that right. Still, that does not diminish the perceptions of my gods. I meant that I tried living without my gods. Looking back on those times, it's no wonder I got into as much trouble as I did, because I realize now that I needed and need them to ground myself, to understand myself, and to live a fulfilling life. I mean that it would be beyond stupid of me to try to dismiss my divinities after they've helped me so much, and I have enough evidence for that to not want to try it. I mean that I've been like this, naturally drawn to things I perceive to have divine nature, since I was a kid. I mean that atheism didn't change that. In rationalist circles people like me, who need divinities, often have little or no recourse. I'm trying to change that. I'm trying to make it clear that I am not mentally ill or anti-science just because I have divinities in my life. I'm trying to make it clear that such a way is possible." It takes a lot of intelligence to discover the nature of one’s personal divinities, through personal experience and research, in a way which holds fast to science. But that’s the real thing: adherence to science is what is more important. People do not have to give up the concept of gods, and for people like me such a choice, to relinquish my divinities, would actually be the opposite of intelligent."What do you mean by this?