Help Sam Harris

Richard

I also took the survey.  The questions were very structured like Bill described -- that is, the questions and responses were not designed for people to think.  Most of my answers to the questions about God and belief were middle of the road -- could not agree or disagree.  Why?  Because it depended on what was meant by the question.

I attempted to generalize so at least I was not answering all the crucial questions the same way, but there were many scenarios that would negate my answer.  If one took the time to actually read my answers (rather than tally them), he would probably scratch his head wondering if this person were bipolar or something.

Which brings me to a question for the questioner...

Is logic a productive means of ascertaining truth?  If someone were to ask me if all logical questions were black/white or gray, I would have to say gray. 

I am curious to know if the course of the river has shifted towards a more Subjective approach.

reido

Bill mentioned the first question in the survey...let's look at it together:

I also had difficulty answering this.  The God of the Bible?  Which one comes to mind.  All the writers talk about the "same" one, but in very different ways.  Did they all see the God of the Bible alike? 

Perhaps this is the point of the question -- to show that we do not all see God alike.  Yeah, I think anyone who has given that much thought would agree.  In fact, that very point has been seen many times at fC in different posts.  So, even from a believer's perspective, we all see God differently.

reido

As simple as this question seems, and as cut and dried as it is to most Christians and Atheists, for me it's impossible to answer when I know that the survey writer expects a Yes answer to fit narrow theological lines, and a No answer to mean no Theist god.

As Reido pointed out, the canon of writings that most people expect to be centered around one God, is not necessarily so. An interesting exercise in this rich subject would include reading Jack Mile's Pulitzer winning book, God: A Biography. While I'm certainly no biblical scholar, I still develop theories and traipse off through books and websites hoping to prove or disprove them. And one I'm currently looking at says that historical Monotheism may be closer to Atheism than to today's Abrahamic religions. That would be a real shocker, huh!?

How can I imagine Monotheism looking like Atheism? Well, I start with Abraham, then look at Moses, Elijah, Jesus, and even Mohammad. In each case I find a prophet leaving polytheism—which was just the religion of the day—and taking orders and advice directly from God. Well, most will say, that's still Theism. But not really. Each one of these prophets rejected the accepted God(s) and religious teachings, and went directly to the source. Did they use commonly understood terms to make their ideas available in the common religous vernacular?

For many Atheists, Science (and reason) is Truth. Nevertheless, is Atheism not merely rejection of the religion of the day? I'm not claiming that Atheism is Truth. It's much too varied to make sweeping claims about belief and epistemology. And some comments that I've read from self-proclaimed Atheists left me wondering whether they really know any more about their chosen philosophical stance than do Christians who only carry their bibles. Some of them seem to worship Science, while having no scientific education or background (except for reading Discover, or New Science). This is to me, like Christians who make pompous claims that they don't even know are wrong.

Jesus was executed for blasphemy, but he may as well have been executed for Atheism—just like Socrates. Both paid tribute to the gods of the land, yet taught about a High God that was more about Goodness, and not about tribal and national power.

I don't mean to sound elitist, but I've noticed that some theologians and theoretical physicists that I've read are closer together than rank and file Theists and Atheists. Some mystics (I'm certainly no expert on Mysticism) seem able to straddle both worlds. And I'm nowadays thinking that the mystics of ancient times did too. Don't many people make up their own definition of "God" that they can't back up?

What do you all think? Is this too far out? Is it scary? Does it make your blood boil?

bill

Bill

Fascinating.  I had to read your post three times, once with coffee, to try to comprehend what AM might mean.  From my experience conversing with atheists this may be a reasonable approach.  I would like to hear their thoughts on the subject.

But with certainty, the heterodox grows out of the orthodox often and can be the antithesis -- then later possibly the synthesis of the two.  I'll take time to look up Jack Miles' book.

reido

Reido,

I'm happy to know that I made some sense.

For some time I've been hinting at what might be a coming-out-of-the-closet for me. Unfortunately, I can't come out until I find the door. There is more to figure out. But one thing I know with some certainty: I will be rejected by both groups.

The more I think about Truth, Faith, Reason and God, the more convinced I am that true Certainty comes only through humble Uncertainty, and that the folks who are most certain about their beliefs, are the most ignorant and proud. Or maybe it's the other way around. Nevertheless, the phenomenon is not limited to religious adherents. Equating Faith with zealous unquestioning is the biggest ruse in history.

For example, popular religion really has not changed much in three or four thousand years. It's still all about signs, destiny and fickle gods. Even well educated Christians petition Poseidon for safe passage, or ask the Oracle or Augur for signs of the will of the gods. They may say God, but their actions and language are as Pagan as the ancient Athenians. Jesus deplored signs. I may be wrong, but I read his famous comment about the Sign of Jonah to mean trial and judgment until we learn to live in spirit and truth—or with purpose and humble truthfulness. Signs are for those of us who refuse to accept reality. We look for an excuse to do what we want, rather than doing what we should. We see the signs we want to see. God is silent (or fickle) until we get the answer we want. If we get the wanted answer, then we know that have pleased the gods.

On the other hand, several of the articles and forums that I've read from Rationalists seem to come from folk who don't know the difference between an irrational constant defining the ratio of circumference to diameter, and an absurd pizza pie. They can't do the math, but they've memorized the arguments. Almost all of mathematics—even the Zero—is logical construct. In the real world we use experience and intuition to add safety factors and contingencies because we know that the math—as complex as it is—is merely a tool. We don't really know what's going to happen until it happens. So, too many I'm convinced, use Science in the same way the ancients used Augurs and Oracles. They think that science predicts their fortune or destiny, and yeilds the will of the gods. Scientism and Rationalism are little different from Pagan religion. They are a search for Certainty that just ain't there. Darwinism gives credence to an authoritarian, privileged class—just as Medieval Christianity did. Little difference.

What the world needs most is some gadflies. We need mavericks who will take on the sophisticates and the superstitious. Some who will roam the agora demanding that people justify their beliefs, and pick apart their excuses. But it's a terminal occupation.

bill

Bill

How can there really be a church without walls?  It can't be measured, and in reality, it just can't be -- and yet a search ensued to experience the nuances of how indeed it could and does exist.  The realm is Spirit.  So much so, I found even the concept of "Church" did not work because the models are all skewed to conform with reality rather than spirit.

I think the Gadfly pesters the Donkey doesn't he?  If I get your meaning...been so long since I've seen one.

Definitely more discussion will be had about this later...

reido

Reido,

Have you read about Jung's theory of the Rock in Matthew 16 being something like the Philosopher's Stone on which to build the Great Work? You've probably read something about it in Kabbalah. It beats my theory of pebble being a personal, spiritual acropolis. But I was close. The key is that Simon, bar Jonah (I love how that parallels with Christ, son of the living God) got his revelation from the Pleroma, instead of the conscious ego.

bill

Bill

No, I have not read Jung -- looked up what was linked above for some interesting concepts not usually taught in Bible class.  I would like to hear more of what Jung thought of this passage.

I see the parallelism of Peter's confession and Jesus' response.  The parallel of "who" it was said that Jesus is and "who" Peter is stands out.  Often ancients used pairs in pairs, so this has me thinking about the parallel to the parallel, which might be in this case the revelatory Father and the foundational rock.  Do you have any ideas that might shed some light?

reido