Anonymous wrote:Hmm. My thoughts on this are evolving. But I'm not convinced that the part of our brain that experiences this "non-word" fully is capable of translating the "thing" - "thought" - "knowledge" (see, none of these feels right to me) into language. Or, perhaps it's that the language forming part of the brain is muddying the waters with all of it's attempts at categorizing and symbolism. It know no other way.

Sam Harris, of all atheists I know, is a lot more spiritual than the rest, or at least the most vocal about it. Some of his writings or talks deal with the subject of enlightenment, spirituality, the sense of self, and how to explore your own consciousness. He may have described what you are attempting to describe. Between raising a family and running a business, I have no time for enlightenment presently. Perhaps when I retire and have a lot more time while fishing to contemplate the meaning of my existence.

Anonymous wrote:
I listened to an old Radiolab podcast the other day -- maybe you've listened to it -- it was the story of this man who was deaf and who had never been taught to communicate and at age 27 he still didn't have language. He'd never been taught that there was a word or a symbol for everything. The woman telling the story said it took her months to finally teach him that "Cat" represented a cat. And then, once that light bulb turned on, of course his entire world opened.

She went back to interview him years later and asked him about his life before that time -- he made some statement to the fact that he couldn't recall what his thoughts were before that moment. There was no way for him to describe, or even remember, what was going on in his head. It was a bank spot in his memory to an extent.

It's just had me thinking a lot about words lately, how they are a communal and fluid thing. And when you think about religion and combine language with the evolved human brain that is constantly trying to infer meaning into things, I think this may be why religion captures so many people in an irrefutable way. I don't deny it serves those basic human needs: moral code, unity, etc. but I think there's something else at work. It's like, the 5 year olds in Sunday school didn't know what they were missing, they didn't know "God" was a symbol they needed until they were taught it, and once the symbol is there, it's sort of unbreakable. There's no reference point to take you back to before. Like our deaf friend and the word cat. Henceforth, it's a cat, just because it's a cat.

Is this making any sense?

Yea, you are making sense. Again I think you are giving too much credit to religion. Yes religion has the profoundly philosophical side. Many theologians are certifiable geniuses. But I think in this regard, religion is purely context, and not the substance. Also, this level of religious study is highly exclusive. Your average Sunday church goer does not relate to religion in this fashion. Their involvement is much more mundane as I listed out previously. Another important element I left out earlier is that religion gives an answer to death. This is one of the most powerful tools that religion has, which is universally comforting since we all go through that moment of realization that we will eventually die. I remember when I was 12 or 13, laying awake in bed thinking about this and almost crying because I couldn't deal with dying and just becoming nothing. I tried to imagine becoming nothing and it was very depressing. Religion solves that problem with a snap of a finger and you don't have to think about it any more. You don't die, in fact you get to live forever. Who doesn't want to live for ever?

I guess I'm driving that there is now a placeholder for some people - you can try to convert the concept of "cat" to something else, "dog" or "Llama" - but there's a placeholder for cat.

I'm thinking of these people that, in all other regards seem rational, and even scientifically-minded but they can't seem to convert the "faith" or the "God" placeholder. This is where the language piece starts to break down on me - because the "something out there" isn't right either, but there IS a there, there. And those of faith feel that they know the "there" and they've but "God of "faith" over it and it's, well it's impossible to convince the deaf guy that there IS NO CAT if you've already given him a name for it.

I think I need to revisit my Pinker, he must have covered this at some point...

Anonymous wrote:Hmm. My thoughts on this are evolving. But I'm not convinced that the part of our brain that experiences this "non-word" fully is capable of translating the "thing" - "thought" - "knowledge" (see, none of these feels right to me) into language. Or, perhaps it's that the language forming part of the brain is muddying the waters with all of it's attempts at categorizing and symbolism. It know no other way.

I listened to an old Radiolab podcast the other day -- maybe you've listened to it -- it was the story of this man who was deaf and who had never been taught to communicate and at age 27 he still didn't have language. He'd never been taught that there was a word or a symbol for everything. The woman telling the story said it took her months to finally teach him that "Cat" represented a cat. And then, once that light bulb turned on, of course his entire world opened.

She went back to interview him years later and asked him about his life before that time -- he made some statement to the fact that he couldn't recall what his thoughts were before that moment. There was no way for him to describe, or even remember, what was going on in his head. It was a bank spot in his memory to an extent.

It's just had me thinking a lot about words lately, how they are a communal and fluid thing. And when you think about religion and combine language with the evolved human brain that is constantly trying to infer meaning into things, I think this may be why religion captures so many people in an irrefutable way. I don't deny it serves those basic human needs: moral code, unity, etc. but I think there's something else at work. It's like, the 5 year olds in Sunday school didn't know what they were missing, they didn't know "God" was a symbol they needed until they were taught it, and once the symbol is there, it's sort of unbreakable. There's no reference point to take you back to before. Like our deaf friend and the word cat. Henceforth, it's a cat, just because it's a cat.

Is this making any sense?

Some, but regarding the 5 year olds -- there are lots of things they may not have words for -- emotions like greed, horror, ecstasy, but they can and do experience such emotions and then remember them later. As for god being a symbol they "needed" - many people reject God later in life and even some 5 year olds don't get it when first presented to them. I know of people who assumed Jesus was in the same category as Santa Clause and were shocked to find out that adults believed in him.

I do think that what you say may apply to some people -- who have a natural tendency to feel that there is something "out there." Let's say it's a sense that others don't have unless they are taught that they must believe in a particular entity that is "out there" but can't be seen. This is all speculation on my part.

Hmm. My thoughts on this are evolving. But I'm not convinced that the part of our brain that experiences this "non-word" fully is capable of translating the "thing" - "thought" - "knowledge" (see, none of these feels right to me) into language. Or, perhaps it's that the language forming part of the brain is muddying the waters with all of it's attempts at categorizing and symbolism. It know no other way.

I listened to an old Radiolab podcast the other day -- maybe you've listened to it -- it was the story of this man who was deaf and who had never been taught to communicate and at age 27 he still didn't have language. He'd never been taught that there was a word or a symbol for everything. The woman telling the story said it took her months to finally teach him that "Cat" represented a cat. And then, once that light bulb turned on, of course his entire world opened.

She went back to interview him years later and asked him about his life before that time -- he made some statement to the fact that he couldn't recall what his thoughts were before that moment. There was no way for him to describe, or even remember, what was going on in his head. It was a bank spot in his memory to an extent.

It's just had me thinking a lot about words lately, how they are a communal and fluid thing. And when you think about religion and combine language with the evolved human brain that is constantly trying to infer meaning into things, I think this may be why religion captures so many people in an irrefutable way. I don't deny it serves those basic human needs: moral code, unity, etc. but I think there's something else at work. It's like, the 5 year olds in Sunday school didn't know what they were missing, they didn't know "God" was a symbol they needed until they were taught it, and once the symbol is there, it's sort of unbreakable. There's no reference point to take you back to before. Like our deaf friend and the word cat. Henceforth, it's a cat, just because it's a cat.

Is this making any sense?

Anonymous wrote:OP: I think this is where language fails us, as a species. The ability to provide symbols for thoughts is an amazing evolutionary function, but I think it's nearly impossible (at least I've yet to find a way) to express and articulate the word it is you're looking for.

I call myself an atheist, because I've come to the conclusion that to say that is important from a social perspective and that religion as most of humanity has defined it, is too narrow and dogmatic, if not dangerous way to try and describe what it is I think you're getting at.

I've come to peace with the fact that this, thing, this that I know, has no name. It can't be out into that form. It is at times entirely evident, and equally indefinable. And that's ok. You don't have to call it anything. You don't have to call it a belief. You don't have to give it a name.

I think language is perfectly fine. It is a tool of communication. Humans are great at coming up with new words to describe new concepts and meanings. There is nothing about English or any other language that prevents a new word, phrase, or description to be created to describe something.

I also think you give religion too much credit for being an effort to define the undefinable. Religion serves very basic human needs and emotions: organization, interaction, unity, moral/legal code, etc. Religion is a social construct that arose naturally. The effort to define the undefinable is just the elaborate magic trick that keeps the believers showing up and prevents them from questioning the leadership of the church.

Call it a sense of awe, wonderment, spirituality, transcendence, whatever. If it is evident, you can give it a name.

Anonymous wrote:Suppose someone looks at the universe and is awestruck. And looks at life in its great variety and wonders how even millions of years of evolution could account for its formation. And that the person says "I don't understand how this came to be, but I would like a word I can use to refer to the amazingly unlikely fact of existence, so I'll call it God, since that's the closest English word I know."

Is that person a believer?

Or must a believer see God as an entity with whom we speak and who loves us?

You are just awestruck. You said it yourself. You can't call it God because God has meaning and you don't want that baggage on your awestruck-ness.

You are also not a believer.

God as a word has definitions and meanings that goes with it. There's been a lot of effort to redefine it to have broader meaning, but this has only served to confuse the discussion reducing many debates to an argument of semantics and definitions.

What you described is just a sense of wonderment and awe about the universe.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What if relativism really is the truth: i.e., "whatever you believe is true for YOU." So what you believe about post death is your fate. Christians are with Jesus in Heaven, Muslims are in their heaven, atheists just become nothing, or their energy/mass transforms into something else, reincarnationists reincarnate, etc. Maybe you get what you ask for?

that would be a form of magic

there is no such thing as magic in life or death.

perhaps the dying brain constructs its own fate based on what it knows or believes. maybe it's not permanent. the only thing we know for certain is that the body stops, the brain stops, and we can't (yet) measure the body's energy for very long after its death.

What do you mean by that? Whatever you can measure before death, you can measure after death.

I always felt like a believer is someone who believes in one God.

Anonymous wrote:OP here. Thanks for the responses.

FWIW, when I wrote, I was in a place where I was looking out at mountains, and where I had to brake shortly before arriving to allow a little rabbit to get off the road. That kind of stuff gets one into a frame of mind conducive to such thoughts.

You sound like a cool person; someone I would like. Yes, you're right!!

OP: 23:58 here. I didn't finish this book. He gets anlttle heavy (although I think meditation is worthy of practice and maybe when I'm not running around after two little kids and just generally trying to keep my head above water I'll revisit.) But I felt the first chapter of this book was written for me. I'd be curious what you think of it, if you haven't read it.

Chalter one is all online: http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/chapter-one

OP chiming in again.

Having started The thread, I feel I owe some feedback now and then to those who have taken the time to write. My own view of things is most closely expressed by 23:58. But I find the other postings interesting, and try to learn from them -- if not about the nature of life, the universe, and everything, at least about my fellow DCUMmers.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What if relativism really is the truth: i.e., "whatever you believe is true for YOU." So what you believe about post death is your fate. Christians are with Jesus in Heaven, Muslims are in their heaven, atheists just become nothing, or their energy/mass transforms into something else, reincarnationists reincarnate, etc. Maybe you get what you ask for?

that would be a form of magic

there is no such thing as magic in life or death.

perhaps the dying brain constructs its own fate based on what it knows or believes. maybe it's not permanent. the only thing we know for certain is that the body stops, the brain stops, and we can't (yet) measure the body's energy for very long after its death.

Anonymous wrote:Suppose someone looks at the universe and is awestruck. And looks at life in its great variety and wonders how even millions of years of evolution could account for its formation. And that the person says "I don't understand how this came to be, but I would like a word I can use to refer to the amazingly unlikely fact of existence, so I'll call it God, since that's the closest English word I know."

Is that person a believer?

Or must a believer see God as an entity with whom we speak and who loves us?

God is also a very confusing word - already used by many different people to mean many different things. Maybe time to give it a rest.

Anonymous wrote:What if relativism really is the truth: i.e., "whatever you believe is true for YOU." So what you believe about post death is your fate. Christians are with Jesus in Heaven, Muslims are in their heaven, atheists just become nothing, or their energy/mass transforms into something else, reincarnationists reincarnate, etc. Maybe you get what you ask for?

that would be a form of magic

OP: I think this is where language fails us, as a species. The ability to provide symbols for thoughts is an amazing evolutionary function, but I think it's nearly impossible (at least I've yet to find a way) to express and articulate the word it is you're looking for.

I call myself an atheist, because I've come to the conclusion that to say that is important from a social perspective and that religion as most of humanity has defined it, is too narrow and dogmatic, if not dangerous way to try and describe what it is I think you're getting at.

I've come to peace with the fact that this, thing, this that I know, has no name. It can't be out into that form. It is at times entirely evident, and equally indefinable. And that's ok. You don't have to call it anything. You don't have to call it a belief. You don't have to give it a name.