Religion III: Skeptical Evangelism, Psychedelic Shamanism, and other Religions of Us Hairless Apes

[Snow Dottir]

No, science has shown that our place in the universe is nothing special. At some level we are as unique and advanced as any other species on this planet.

That in no way needs to lead to some nihilistic philosophy though. Since we are still unique to each other.

But we built the internet. We have Technology. Who else has this?

How are humans beings not more advanced than every other species on this planet? I'm not trying to be naive I just don't have an answer to that.

[Sci-2]

But we built the internet. We have Technology. Who else has this?

How are humans beings not more advanced than every other species on this planet? I'm not trying to be naive I just don't have an answer to that.

I'd say it's more our rationality and comprehension of universals that sets us apart, with technology following from that.

But yeah, I do think humans have something that makes us different - our alienation from Nature's ebb & flow is evidence of that. It may not make us superior, but our Gnostic condition definitely separates us from our fellow animals.

[Gears of the Beast]

But we built the internet. We have Technology. Who else has this?

How are humans beings not more advanced than every other species on this planet? I'm not trying to be naive I just don't have an answer to that.

Birds can see UV light. A whole wavelength of the electromagnetic spectrum that we can't. Are they more advanced? No, that's simply a product of their evolution. They evolved to see that, we did not. Humans evolved with a very high intelligence compared to other species, this lead things to technology and stuff. Why can beavers knock down 10 trees in a day using only their mouth? It's how they evolved, we certainly can't do that. Penguins can live in -50 degree temperature, we sure as fuck can't. When you use an example of something humans can do that other animals can't to say they're more advanced your point falls apart because this is exactly what you observe happening with evolution with all manner of different species. What we can do is pretty remarkable, look at nature, a lot of species can do pretty remarkable things.

[TrueMetis]

I'd say it's more our rationality and comprehension of universals that sets us apart, with technology following from that.

But yeah, I do think humans have something that makes us different - our alienation from Nature's ebb & flow is evidence of that. It may not make us superior, but our Gnostic condition definitely separates us from our fellow animals.

We are in no way alienated from the ebb and flow of nature. I really don't know why people think that.

[Sci-2]

We are in no way alienated from the ebb and flow of nature. I really don't know why people think that.

I mean in the sense that we have a capacity of self-reflection and self-awareness no other animal seems to have. We can actually wonder why we're here. Maybe other animals do that as well, but I've not seen any evidence for it.

The very existence of religion is, in some sense, evidence for our alienation.

[TrueMetis]

I mean in the sense that we have a capacity of self-reflection and self-awareness no other animal seems to have. We can actually wonder why we're here. Maybe other animals do that as well, but I've not seen any evidence for it.

The very existence of religion is, in some sense, evidence for our alienation.

Seems a rather odd way to use the term nature's ebb and flow.

[Snow Dottir]

Birds can see UV light. A whole wavelength of the electromagnetic spectrum that we can't. Are they more advanced? No, that's simply a product of their evolution. They evolved to see that, we did not. Humans evolved with a very high intelligence compared to other species, this lead things to technology and stuff. Why can beavers knock down 10 trees in a day using only their mouth? It's how they evolved, we certainly can't do that. Penguins can live in -50 degree temperature, we sure as fuck can't. When you use an example of something humans can do that other animals can't to say they're more advanced your point falls apart because this is exactly what you observe happening with evolution with all manner of different species. What we can do is pretty remarkable, look at nature, a lot of species can do pretty remarkable things.

Yes, my boyfriend and I talked about this.

Isn't that all a form of Biology? I'm talking Technology, Even bio-technology created by us seems more on the level of hubris than feeling the human species is special somehow from other species and that "maybe, just maybe there's somthing tending the light at the end of the tunnel ??" (Hunter s. Thompson said that not me)

I don't think we're better, not more adapted, but unique. Had we evolved more naturally who knows what we'd be capable of. Industry, technology has made our bodies weaker and minds stronger IMO. Maybe we'll evolve into machines? To me that's horrifying and the definition of hubris. We don't wan't God(s)...We think we are God. ( blatant generality, I don't think everyone feels this way)

I'm not in love with humanity :) This quote, " I have now become Death, the destroyer of worlds" Oppenheimer quoted this when the pandora box of the atom bomb was a reality...I don't know which Indian text it's from, one of the Gitas I believe but it sums it up.

[Snow Dottir]

We are in no way alienated from the ebb and flow of nature. I really don't know why people think that.

Really?

In my state it was Marshland, swamps. We clearcut land and grow bio-engineered corn. From the sky, this state looks like a crazy quilt where it should be green. My Gradmother was born in 1913, she could go into her woods and dig roots for medicine, she taught me to hunt yellow root and ginseng and the lore and properties of many other plants... something that very few people care to do anymore. We planted our own food and planting by the signs was more than superstition. I can go out right now and show you plants in my yard that can heal or kill you.

Women's cycles were once regulated by the moon cycle, now it's by drugs. Natural endorphins are replaced with chemicals and the natural medicines are outlawed. Poppies are illegal to grow and harvest for medicine but you can take an NSAID and ruin your liver.

Valerian root, passionflower, ect have been replaced by Xanax, Valium comes from a Valerian root derivative but they can have horrible withdrawls, Xanax can make you a shivering mound and throw you into seizures.

Ativan has replaced coffee for alot of young people and if your depressed or anxious well..they will try a bombardment of random chemicals to fuck with your brain, mess with your seretonin receptors, ect. The Big pharma companies pump up the propaganda and we eat it like a fat kid eats cake.

The Sun is "Bad" for you. We produce food that is cheap but horrible for us. The water is poisoned, the birds are falling dead from the sky. You can't eat the fish "if you're of child bearing age" out of my local river and I don't even live in the city.

I could honestly go on forever.

Tell me how we have not become removed from the ebb and flow of nature when alot of people won't even go into the woods for fear of spiders and ticks?

I'm not being argumentative just passionate about this, Oh, passion...another quirky human thing :)

[TerraPrime]

The list of examples showcases more how humans are short-sighted in our utilization of the natural resources without regard to long-term consequences. It reads more like Agent Smith's condemnation of humans in The Matrix. It shows that humans interact with nature and are in turn harmed by our thoughtless actions. It doesn't show that we are now removed from nature.

You should also keep in mind that while a larger percentage of the world's population live in cities, still, many many people live in rural areas that do still run across spiders and ticks. Even in metropolitan areas, humans are subjected to effects of the natural world, like the spread of diseases (ranging from influenza to STDs), natural disasters like monsoons and earthquakes (Haiti, Katrina, etc.), and city folks generally fail to notice the wildlife around them (rats, squirrels, worms, etc.).

So I think True Metis is right - we are NOT removed from nature. We are doing terrible things to the current balance, but we are not apart from it.

[Sci-2]

Perhaps I'm mistaken but I think this entire debate hinges on how one defines "ebb & flow of nature", and thus seems more about semantics than substance?

=-=-=

The Mystical Brain: The Primordial Roots of Religion (p64-80)

The anthropological study of religion is as enduring as it is difficult to define and research. I would like to briefly describe the strengths and weaknesses of the anthropology of religion, and then proceed to show the ways that the neuroanthropological and neurophenomenological approaches bolster some of the weaknesses in both ethnographic research and anthropological theory construction. I will pay particular attention to how ethnographers may be adequately trained to get at the more critical experiential dimensions of religion, and will argue for the advantages of a mature neurophenomenology. I will conclude with some suggestions about future directions we may wish to consider.

=-=-=

Sensing Sacred Objects

So far, we have been considering the sacredness of ordinary objects in our daily lives. However, some objects have earned the title of sacred for more spiritual reasons. The sacred objects of orality-based cultures hold far more than the memories of their lived experiences. They hold a spiritual energy that is easily sensed by all of their members and is of vital importance to their ceremonial lives. Often the creation of these objects becomes a conscious practice in reverence to those who create them.

In 1980, Kashiwaya Sensei, an aikido master and then director of the Rocky Mountain Ki Society, gave a public talk describing the energetic and mindful nature of ki, the life force at the heart of Aikido practice. In describing its far-ranging powers, he gave the example of wood carvers creating statues of the Buddha and commented, “If you carve a Buddha without ki, it will not sell. It will not attract a buyer.” In other words, the energetic focus and intention of the carver is critical. The carvers of saints, called Santeros, of the southwest United States would agree with him. Felix Lopez of Espanola, New Mexico, is a renowned Santero who is literate and has been a high school teacher, but is very commit- ted to the traditional ways of his Spanish Catholic heritage. He spoke eloquently of his practice in a video interview in approximately 1990:

“When you carve a santo, you have to be in the right frame of mind, because it’s actually like a form of prayer. At the end, you are tired, but you feel very good about what you’ve accomplished. This is the greatest feeling.” He concludes the interview by saying, “For me, being a Santero has been a calling, a vocation from God. And I’m very thankful to Him for giving me this opportunity to create spiritual images that can help people in their spiritual lives or simply can be enjoyed by anyone if they only see it as a work of art.”

[Snow Dottir]

Perhaps I'm mistaken but I think this entire debate hinges on how one defines "ebb & flow of nature", and thus seems more about semantics than substance?

The ebb and flow of nature, like the moon controls the tides. I don't think our ability to reflect and ponder our place in the universe alienates us from nature, that IS our nature. I think when we think we're more powerful and smarter than the forces that have been manipulating the universe without any help from us for millions upon millions of years THAT is hubris.

My boyfriend thinks were all here because this planet was terraformed and we're really aliens:) :) Funny thing is more people would consider that than the existence of God(s). I've heard some atheist that prostelyze worse than any sidewalk preacher.

If my diatribe sounded like a condemnation of humanity, it was. Don't get me wrong, I'm not a granola eating hippy...Nature can be cruel as kind. Everyone pays lip service to "saving the earth".... IMHO the earth will be just fine. It will re-green. Nature always finds a way to take back over. The evidence is in a sidewalk that gets broken by plants, an abandon house devoured by vines, ect.

The earth will be fine, until some sort of unavoidable cataclysm that inevitably happens to all planets. We're pretty much screwed though.

So ::: enable sarcasm::: Instead of worrying about nature we should worry about important things like chem-lawn and achieving that perfectly manicured curb-appeal. :::end sarcasm::::

ETA::: How did I miss this chestnut? Seli, I'm sorry I havent added the actual quote but what deserts are you refering to when you say our anscetors created them? Please tell me you're not referring to a "Dustbowl" situation that occured after the industrial revolution. There is nothing rosy about living with nature that's why people would much rather not....Like Jello Biafra once said "Give me convenience or give me death"

[Sci-2]

The ebb and flow of nature, like the moon controls the tides. I don't think our ability to reflect and ponder our place in the universe alienates us from nature, that IS our nature. I think when we think we're more powerful and smarter than the forces that have been manipulating the universe without any help from us for millions upon millions of years THAT is hubris.

Ah, gotcha. I better understand what you mean.

My boyfriend thinks were all here because this planet was terraformed and we're really aliens:) :) Funny thing is more people would consider that than the existence of God(s). I've heard some atheist that prostelyze worse than any sidewalk preacher.

Or maybe it's alien-god dimensional travelers...or at least I believe that's what Strieber claimed when he associated an alien with the goddess Ishtar:

Through a Fractured Glass, Darkly (Part One): The Facts in the Strange Case of Whitley Strieber

To dismiss Strieber as insane doesn't work, either, because there were plenty of other witnesses to testify to the strange goings-on around his New York cabin during the period in which he underwent his experiences. (Ed Conroy even wrote a whole book on his investigations, called The Communion Report.) So if Strieber is neither insane nor lying, if what he says happened actually happened, the question to ask is: how accurate are his accounts, and why, exactly, did these beings choose a well-known author of horror fiction to introduce their presence to humanity?

I don't actually know that much about Strieber or Conroy, so I'm not going to argue whether or not these things are real. In fact I kinda think that's boring. What's interesting, IMO, is the cult that forms around Strieber, where the Chosen (who happen to be Strieber followers) are immune to telepathic control because they've seen the truth.

It's fascinating to map the whole phenomenon with prior religions and the mythology of tribulations.

I can't help but feel that it's plausible something - not necessarily paranormal - happened and was at best a signal for Strieber's personal transformation. However I think the later contacts and developed mythology involving chosen persons and an epic struggle may have been the result of a mind trying to make sense of something that was fundamentally nonsensical or, again at best, meant to be deeply personal rather than a message meant for the rest of us.

Perhaps many religions have been started in this way. Someone has a transcendental experience in a forest/desert/cave, but mistakenly thinks the message is scripture that is universally applicable.

"every nervous system makes its own model of the event: alien abduction, satanic abuse, shamanic trial, temporal lobe epilepsy...whatever. i don't know if they're aliens or time travelers or neural spasms. what i know is this:

unusual information and insights seem to download into the brain. a kind of ego annihilation is followed by euphoric reintegration and a sense of extended understanding.

there's a surge of creative energy, all time is understood to be happening simultaneously, weird synchronicities occur constantly.

a new relationship with time, the Self, and death."

-Grant Morrison, Invisibles

[Sci-2]

Why Aren’t More Americans Atheists?: Turns out it has nothing to do with science. And everything to do with politics.

Once upon a time, so the story goes, people believed that the world was young and flat, that God made everything including people in a few, frantically busy days, and that earthquakes and thunderstorms were examples of his furious rage, which you ignored at your peril. Into this sorry state of affairs, emerged a thing called “science” and, despite the best efforts of ignorant, self-serving clerics who wished to keep the people in utmost darkness, “science” proved that none of the above was true. Gradually, wonderfully, the human race matured, with every confident scientific step forward pushing our infantile, crumbling ideas of the divine closer to oblivion. “Extinguished theologians lie about the cradle of every science, as the strangled snakes besides that of Hercules,” as Thomas Huxley, the English biologist known as “Darwin’s bulldog,” memorably put it.

The problem with this particular creation myth is that whilst it is true enough to be believable, it is not true enough to be true. “Science”—if we can treat that collection of disparate disciplines as one single, coherent enterprise—did have something to do with the growth of atheism in the West, but very much less than most imagine. Those three great moments of scientific progress—the Copernican revolution in the 16th century, the scientific revolution in the 17th and the Darwinian in the 19th—were hardly atheistic at all. Copernicus was a priest; Francis Bacon, the father of modern science, devout; and Charles Darwin incredulous that anyone could imagine evolution demanded godlessness. “It seems to me absurd to doubt that a man may be an ardent Theist & an evolutionist,” he wrote in 1879.

In reality, the growth of atheism in Europe and America has much more to do with politics and, in particular, ecclesiastically backed politics, than it has with science, something that is clear even from its earliest days.

[OnionAhaiReborn]

That article looks back to the origin of Enlightenment era atheism and declares it politically motivated, offering a reasonable case, in my opinion. Ok, but maybe an article asking why more Americans aren't atheists should pay attention instead to the explosion of atheism and irreligiousness among young people and ask why that's the case today? Clearly it can't be held that, as with Enlightenment era France, it's a reaction to a stiflingly over-powerful established Church, which we do not have. Might it have something to do with the explosion of access to knowledge coming along with the Information Age? Obviously that's a big, complicated case to make, but it's a far more plausible theory than a political explanation based on a comparison to 18th century France and England.

[Sci-2]

I suspect that atheism's spread today is even more politically motivated than in the past. I'm not saying this is a bad thing, but I'd actually argue that atheism's identification with secular humanism is responsible for it's spread.

As for knowledge in the Information Age, I'd question the degree of interest people have in theism vs atheism outside of political motivation. Most are probably happy to identify as agnostic or a believer in some vague Spirit, or to keep their faith a largely private matter outside of the once-every-four-years vote for President.

=-=-=

Related to the last article I posted:

Science fictions: Is the scientific endeavour always a bold and noble quest for truth? Not when it is writing its own history

Scientists can be notoriously dismissive of other disciplines, and one of the subjects that suffers most at their hands is history. That suggestion will surprise many scientists. ‘But we love history!’ they’ll cry. And indeed, there is no shortage of accounts from scientists of the triumphant intellectual accomplishments of Einstein, Darwin, Newton, Galileo, and so on. They name institutes and telescopes after these guys, making them almost secular saints of rationalism.

And that’s the problem. All too often, history becomes a rhetorical tool bent into a shape that serves science, or else a source of lively anecdote to spice up the introduction to a talk or a book. Oh, that Mendeleev and his dream of a periodic table, that Faraday forecasting a tax on electricity!

I don’t wish to dismiss the value of a bit of historical context. But it’s troubling that the love of a good story so often leads scientists to abandon the rigorous attitude to facts that they exhibit in their own work. Most worrisome of all is the way these tales from science history become shoehorned into a modern narrative — so that, say, the persecution of Galileo shows how religion is the enemy of scientific truth.

At a time when science is genuinely under threat from religiously, politically and ideologically motivated antagonists, in climate science, evolutionary theory and embryo and stem cell research, this wish to enlist history in the good fight is understandable. But the fact is, as Richard Westfall implies, by remaking history according to our own presentist convictions we actually risk sabotaging our aims. We can no longer see the present so clearly if we keep comparing it to a romanticised past. And one can hardly claim to be a champion of evidence-based reason while demonstrating such indifference to the evidence of history.

The imagined version of ‘Enlightenment principles’ has no useful role in creating a present where reason and evidence are freed from dogma and superstition. Some version of that aim was shared by Galileo and Darwin, to be sure. But their times were not ours, and their battles were different. We should leave them alone and get on with what is needed now.

[Gears of the Beast]

Why Aren’t More Americans Atheists?: Turns out it has nothing to do with science. And everything to do with politics.

You're really great at finding articles that totally piss me off. That article is an ignorant, incorrect and dishonest pile of shit. I seriously lack any inclination to go deeper into than to say you probably shouldn't listen to a guy whose main thesis is about science and atheism and does not understand what either of those two things are.

Honestly I was expecting so much more from a Politico writer who works for a Christian "think" tank. /s

[Castel]

:leaving:

[TrueMetis]

You're really great at finding articles that totally piss me off. That article is an ignorant, incorrect and dishonest pile of shit. I seriously lack any inclination to go deeper into than to say you probably shouldn't listen to a guy whose main thesis is about science and atheism and does not understand what either of those two things are.

Honestly I was expecting so much more from a Politico writer who w

orks for a Christian "think" tank. /s

I liked this part

“This most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent Being,” Newton wrote in Book III of his Principia. If the greatest scientist in Europe thought this, who was anyone to say different?

Read more: http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/08/why-arent-more-americans-atheists-109732.html#ixzz39ltAAlxH

Literally anyone, this is just argument from authority bullshit. Pierre-Simon Laplace if you want someone specific. And I'd dispute the "greatest scientist in Europe" bit, highly intelligent sure but the greatest scientist in Europe wouldn't get to a point where he couldn't figure out some issue on Orbital Mechanics and go "godidit," like Newton did. Isaac Newton is nothing short of one of the worst examples of the negative effect religion has on science.After all it's not his religious tracts he's known for.

Liked this part too

“Science”—if we can treat that collection of disparate disciplines as one single, coherent enterprise

Read more: http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/08/why-arent-more-americans-atheists-109732.html#ixzz39lwqDR00

Protip for the author of this piece, if you don't know what science is don't talk about science.

[Gears of the Beast]

Protip for the author of this piece, if you don't know what science is don't talk about science.

Yeah that's the exact quote I was talking about, I guess I'm just naive but I still get shocked when I read shit like that. And just refer to this charlatan's book if you need any evidence that he doesn't understand what atheism is at all.

[Sci-2]

:leaving:

?