Is anybody reading...

[u-dog]

... Karen Armstrong's new book "The Case For God" ? IT just arrived in the mail yesterday and I'm only a few pages in but I'm finding it fascinating. she articulates very clearly the idea that most of our talk about God is fascile and stupid because the God we are talking about is WAY TOO SMALL. She also articulates an idea that I have long mulled over: that Fundamentalism and Atheism are twins born of the enlightenment and the scientific age and that both suffer from a stunted and immature understanding of what God is and how religious language functions.

Andy? why don't you get this book and we'll read it together? That would be fun eh? And Rick336? that could be exciting.


U-dog

[Zerbie]

I don't think Rick will be drawn to read a book the premise of which is that he is stunted and immature. What's in her argument that he might find intellectually interesting and appealing? What might make him want to read it?

Funny thing tho - when I read your first sentences about a god-concept being way too small, I flashed back to that night when I was a little girl and saw that small god concept in our culture's 'religious leaders.' I thought, if that's what religion is, then I am an atheist, because that is not God they are talking about. So I called myself an atheist for 20 years before I decided I was probably misapplying the term.

[Rick336]

Andy? why don't you get this book and we'll read it together? That would be fun eh? And Rick336? that could be exciting.


U-dog

I would love nothing more than to know for certain that a superior intelligence designed the universe and has provided a way for me to survive death and live forever. If this book provides convincing evidence for that, then that would be wonderful.

I will go to Borders Books today and see if they have a copy and if they do I will buy it and read it.

Rick

[u-dog]

I have nothing but affection and respect for Rick and didn't mean to imply shallowness on his part.

What is exciting about Armstrong's book (what I've read so far) is that she puts the fairly recent phenomena of atheism and fundamentalism in a much larger and more ancient framework of how the world's cultures have understood what "Knowledge" and "Knowing" are as well as a much deeper and more sophisticated understanding of what "the divine" is.

Where atheists and fundamentalists share a certain intellectual shallowness is in their conception of God which she seems to argue is a conception of God that emerged only in the 16th and 17th centuries with the emergence of the "modern" era.

As I understand her argument so far prior to the enlightment, people had understood knowledge to be of two sorts, "Logos" which was the concrete knowledge of palpable experience that allows us to treat disease and create and build new weapons and tools etc. and "Mythos" which allowed human beings to explore the "liminal" aspects of our experience ... the experiences that cluster around death and suffering and joy.

She argues that with the emergence of the modern era and its spectacular early successes, western culture abandoned this two-fold understanding of knowledge and pretty much put all of its eggs in the "logos" basket. This was as true for religion as for science. Initially this worked well for religion. There was plenty of "evidence" in the Newtonian Universe for the existence of a clock-maker God. This encourage the emergence of "literalism" and "fundamentalism". When it became clear a generation or two in that the "God hypothesis" could be eliminated without much problem then modern "atheism" began to emerge as well. What happened is that "God" became a kind of caricature of himself which fundamentalists held onto with white knuckes and eyes clenched tightly shut and which atheists grasped onto just as tightly in order to use it as a straw man in their attacks on religion.

I don't think that Armstrong is going to try to convert you Rick. She is going to try to expand the context within which you see the choices. Armstrong spent nine years as a nun in the English Catholic church and left because she couldn't find God. She does not consider herself a Christian at this point, but she seems to have discovered a huge respect for Christian belief as well as the beliefs of the other religions. Her critique is not so much of atheism as it is of Western scientific rationalism and all of its intellectual offspring (including Christian and non-Christian fundamentalisms)

[Rick336]

I would love nothing more than to know for certain that a superior intelligence designed the universe and has provided a way for me to survive death and live forever. If this book provides convincing evidence for that, then that would be wonderful.

I will go to Borders Books today and see if they have a copy and if they do I will buy it and read it.

Rick


I went to Borders and found the book. The price of $27.95 is a little out of my price range right now. I think I'll wait until it comes out in paperback.

I did page through it while I was there and didn't see anything jump out at me that made the case for God. That's not to say there isn't one.

I don't think that Armstrong is going to try to convert you Rick. She is going to try to expand the context within which you see the choices.

Good. I'll be looking forward to that.


Rick

[Zerbie]

Maybe you don't have to buy it. Your library might have it - or if not, they might be willing to acquire it.

I don't think western scientific rationalism is a problem. The problem is if we conclude that if we cannot presently measure a thing (or a non-thing) according TO scientific rationalism, then to dismiss it as non-existent. That is a problem. The greater problem today however lies with the fact that we have a large segment of society which does not even accept palpably observable science. These seem to be two quite distinct phenomena to me.

How does this author trace fundamentalism to the Enlightenment? If anything, fundamentalism is reactionary against the Enlightenment, in that it is serving the ends of those who would establish an economic tyranny of a few over nearly everyone else in society. I'd be interested as to how she supports the argument of fundamentalism as a product of the Enlightenment.

Well, let me know what you find in it, Rick, Udog. I'm not sure I have the inclination to go into another book right now so all I'm responding to is what I've seen alluded to here.

[Gennee]

There are some things in life that cannot be examined. It is man's position that if some thing can't be examined then it is invalidated and tossed aside. Where does wind come from? Why am I transgender? How does the earth stay on its axis? These are some questions we may not know but are.

Gennee
:pray:

[andrewlittle]

Andy? why don't you get this book and we'll read it together? That would be fun eh? And Rick336? that could be exciting.

U-dog

I will try to find it in the next couple of days. Of course, you'll be leaps and bounds ahead of me reading it. I'll try to catch up quick.

[Daniel]

Karen Armstrong is a Lesbian? At least if memory serves. Not that it matters to the conversation per se. Still...I think it's interesting. Adds flavor to the soup.

Back to the conversation: this is an interesting one. Think I will go have a look-see at the book at B & N tomorrow.

[Emproph]

she articulates very clearly the idea that most of our talk about God is fascile and stupid because the God we are talking about is WAY TOO SMALL.

I’ve had spontaneous visions of God before when in deep contemplation. I usually jump up out of my chair, scream and start hyperventilating.

One thing that is a constant is that the understanding of it is that it (God) is incomprehensibly huge (infinite), which is what makes the experience SO intense. Not that I can see infinity itself, but I get a glimpse of it. It’s so beautiful that it’s almost painful.

I went to Borders and found the book. The price of $27.95 is a little out of my price range right now. I think I'll wait until it comes out in paperback.

Amazon.com: "The Case For God" (http://www.amazon.com/Case-God-Karen-Armstrong/dp/0307269183/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1254031238&sr=8-1)
List Price: $27.95 Price: $16.34

[Daniel]

List Price: $27.95 Price: $16.34

http://www.abebooks.com/servlet/BookDetailsPL?bi=1406910512&searchurl=an%3Darmstrong%26sts%3Dt%26tn%3Dthe%2Bca se%2Bfor%2Bgod%26x%3D46%26y%3D10

For 17 bucks.

There is no preview as of yet on google books, but her other book, A History of God might provide some context.

http://books.google.com/books?id=_n3cCF2I2FUC&pg=PA14&dq=the+case+for+god+armstrong#v=onepage&q=&f=false

[Rick336]

I’ve had spontaneous visions of God before when in deep contemplation. I usually jump up out of my chair, scream and start hyperventilating.

One thing that is a constant is that the understanding of it is that it (God) is incomprehensibly huge (infinite), which is what makes the experience SO intense. Not that I can see infinity itself, but I get a glimpse of it. It’s so beautiful that it’s almost painful.



I may have had similar experiences except without the vision of God.

I have had episodes of complete ecstasy (not the drug). It's difficult to describe to anyone who has never experience it but it's the most beautiful feeling of peace and love I've ever had. Another word for it is euphoria. I experimented with drugs when I was younger but no drug has ever come anywhere close to this. It is, as Emproph describes it, an extremely intense event and so absolutely beautiful it brings tears.

One episode I will always remember happened on July 21st, 1977 in Minneapolis while riding my bike around Lake Calhoun. It lasted about two hours and was so beautiful it's hard to describe.

Another episode happened on a dance floor around that same time period.

I "ecstasied" as I call it, on a Wyoming mountaintop in 1980 and again in the mountains of Colorado in 1991.

The last ecstasy I experienced was on Christmas Eve 2007.

All of my experiences are created inside my brain probably by a rush of serotonin as a result of an extremely positive state of mind. They do not involve drugs or religion.

The dictionary defines ecstasy as:

Ecstasy (emotion): a trance or trance-like state in which an individual transcends normal consciousness.

Religious ecstasy: a state of consciousness characterized by expanded spiritual awareness, visions or absolute euphoria.


Amazon.com: "The Case For God" (http://www.amazon.com/Case-God-Karen-Armstrong/dp/0307269183/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1254031238&sr=8-1)
List Price: $27.95 Price: $16.34

Thanks.



Rick

[Zerbie]

Rick, you can probably find somewhere some articles on 'spiritual' centers of the brain. I've seen such terms mentioned before when I've flitted around google.

I'm personally quite interested in the connection between neurobiology and spirituality. If anyone has recommendations. . . .

[Rick336]

Rick, you can probably find somewhere some articles on 'spiritual' centers of the brain. I've seen such terms mentioned before when I've flitted around google.


Yes. Good idea. I'll do some research.

Also, I think maybe we need to start another thread on this subject because I'm not sure it fits here and it's something I rarely discuss since almost nobody I've ever talked to about it can relate.

When Emproph mentioned it in his post, I instantly knew he was talking about ecstasy. I would love to hear more from him and others about their experiences.

Rick

[u-dog]

I will try to find it in the next couple of days. Of course, you'll be leaps and bounds ahead of me reading it. I'll try to catch up quick.

I'm a pathetically slow reader ... adult ADD ... untreated (except with adrenalin caused by procrastination)

[bnmoore]

Yes. Good idea. I'll do some research.

Also, I think maybe we need to start another thread on this subject because I'm not sure it fits here and it's something I rarely discuss since almost nobody I've ever talked to about it can relate.

When Emproph mentioned it in his post, I instantly knew he was talking about ecstasy. I would love to hear more from him and others about their experiences.

Rick

I have a sense of humor about it so I refer to it as being pimp-slapped by oneness. Or maybe a timeless place where you totally experience that the universe is unfolding in perfect beauty.

If you like a little more science with you spirituality there's a new book titled "How God Changes Your Brain" by Andrew Newberg, M.D. and Mark Robert Waldman.

[Rick336]

If you like a little more science with you spirituality there's a new book titled "How God Changes Your Brain" by Andrew Newberg, M.D. and Mark Robert Waldman.

I read a review on this book on Amazon.com and it said that it's not so much about how God changes your brain as it is about how spirituality changes your brain.

I think that spirituality is probably like spinach; it's good for you. But spirituality doesn't always include a belief in God.

One reviewer said this about the book: "For example, one part of the brain can generate images of an angry god; another, feelings of a compassionate god; yet another part of the brain can generate doubtful thoughts, and so on. They also present new data showing how Americans are becoming less religious but more spiritual as they embrace images of a universe that is scientific yet mystical."

That last sentence pretty much describes my spirituality.


Rick

[bnmoore]

I read a review on this book on Amazon.com and it said that it's not so much about how God changes your brain as it is about how spirituality changes your brain.

I think that spirituality is probably like spinach; it's good for you. But spirituality doesn't always include a belief in God.

One reviewer said this about the book: "For example, one part of the brain can generate images of an angry god; another, feelings of a compassionate god; yet another part of the brain can generate doubtful thoughts, and so on. They also present new data showing how Americans are becoming less religious but more spiritual as they embrace images of a universe that is scientific yet mystical."

That last sentence pretty much describes my spirituality.


Rick

At our center we come from various and diverse backgrounds. You may not run across that many people that use the g-word. We're more about applied spirituality. You could say that we believe in belief. That spiritual laws are natural laws that work the same way for everyone. It's cause and effect. Actions and the logical consequences of those actions. It's not about telling people what to think, it's about teaching them how to think.

[Rick336]

At our center we come from various and diverse backgrounds. You may not run across that many people that use the g-word. We're more about applied spirituality. You could say that we believe in belief. That spiritual laws are natural laws that work the same way for everyone. It's cause and effect. Actions and the logical consequences of those actions. It's not about telling people what to think, it's about teaching them how to think.

Spiritually doesn't always come from beliefs.

And teaching people how to think sounds like a great idea. But for many non-believers like myself, faith or beliefs without evidence is not thinking. Or at least it's not critical thinking.

The definition of critical thinking is: A mental process of analyzing or evaluating information, particularly statements or propositions that people have offered as true. It forms a process of reflecting upon the meaning of statements, examining the offered evidence and reasoning, and forming judgments about the facts.

In other words, if we use critical thinking to analyze the belief that a donkey once spoke a human language, our judgment from the evidence (or lack of it) would prove otherwise. The reasonable probability that a donkey had the mental capacity to form words into sentences or that the story was written at a time when most people believed that sea monsters rules the oceans, we would come to the logical conclusion that a donkey never talked and that the Bible is in error.

If this is what you mean by "teaching people to think" then it's definitely a good thing.

Sorry, I may have gotten a little off the subject here.

Rick