Why atheist me isn't interested in religious views

Recently a regular commenter on this blog, Spence Tepper, proposed an experiment. Basically, it was a sort of "reflective listening" exercise, where before arguing for your own position, you state as clearly as possible how someone opposed to your position feels/thinks.

Here's what Tepper said:

In fact, Brian, I would like to offer a social psychology experiment for those of us participating here regularly. Let's all work with you to create a list of our names and our current position on matters of Atheism, Agnosticism, Theism etc. And the opposite position. Then, for one week, each day we comment on a blog post you provide talking the exact opposite point of view to our normal perspective.

For example, I would argue purely for Anti-theism and point to the amoral and corrupting influence of all forms of theistic belief, including RSSB. You might choose to adopt the role of a devout Catholic... Arjuna and One Initiated might assume the roles of Atheist and Sceptic. Etc... If any of us falters or appears not to make the best case of the role, anyone is free to call us on it.

And we will be bound to deepen our case for the opposite view, or to do some research on that view and return with a stronger argument for it. My hypothesis is that, after a week of doing this with full sincerity, we will change our position. It might only change a little, or we might actually be firmer in understanding why we actually believe what we do now. But I believe our post experiment position will change permanently.

I also believe that each of us will report an understanding and greater respect of the opposite view we don't have now, which we would be unable to develop without stepping into that role ourselves. Well? Any takers?

Here's why I'm not interested in the idea.

(1) Been there, done that. Not every atheist used to be a religious believer, and not every religious believer used to be an atheist. But often this is the case. When it is, the person who switched sides, so to speak, has a very good understanding of how the other side thinks, because they themselves used to think that way.

This applies to me.

In my teen and early college years, I was an atheist. Then for 35 years I was a devotee of an Eastern religion. And for the past 13 years or so I've reverted to atheism. So I understand the religious mentality because it used to be a core part of my psyche. Meaning, I don't need to put myself in the role of a religious person, since I played that role for many years.

(2) Objective reality doesn't have two sides. Reality isn't this and that. It simply is. 

Of course, when we aren't sure what reality is like, various hypotheses can be put forward, since no one knows which is true. For a long time people debated whether the sun revolved around the earth, or the earth revolved around the sun. Now that debate is over.

Ditto with whether human-caused global warming is happening. I have little or no interest in understanding how global warming deniers think, because their thinking is wrong. Likewise, I consider that anyone who believes in God or the supernatural is wrong, because there is no demonstrable evidence for those beliefs. 

Yes, I understand that lots of people feel that God and the supernatural are real. I used to feel that way myself. But I don't see any point in trying to understand a viewpoint that is almost certainly incorrect. 

(3) Facts would change my mind, not another mind. I love politics. I love discussions. I love newspaper opinion pages. So part of what Spence Tepper suggested appeals to me -- the part about examining the basis for opposing positions. In fact, in my blog posts I regularly ask religious believers to provide solid evidence that God or the supernatural exists. 

I'm very much open to changing my atheist mind, but so far no one has provided that evidence.

However, it isn't understanding a religious believer's mind that would cause this change. Like I said above, I used to have that sort of mind. I remember how I used to think, and now I don't think that way, since it no longer makes sense to me.

In some cases, knowing how another mind feels about something is instructive. I like to read Top Critic reviews on the Rotten Tomatoes web site when deciding whether to watch a certain movie. But when it comes to deciding whether God exists, or the supernatural exists, for me this isn't a matter of opinion, it is a matter of fact.

Again, I already understand why people believe in God and the supernatural. I'm sympathetic to those beliefs, since I used to have them myself. Yet I don't see any reason to restate them, as Tepper suggested. The facts are on the side of atheism, and that's much more important to me than the mental mindset of a religious believer. 

Comments

[Arjuna]

@ Brian - this post touched me and made me question a few things.

I love the way you wrote;

3) Facts would change my mind, not another mind.

I think Gurinder needs to come out and explain - I am seeing a lot of good people break. Say no more

Thank you Brian - you change things and make people think

[777]

(3) Facts would change my mind,

You have proven 50 times. : " No. ! "

You can' recognize facts
You just ignore them

It's beyond your karma possibilities
How could we discuss with an 8 years old !

777

[Spence Tepper]

Hi Brian

Facts aside, your going a mile in my direction to write this post is a humbling example of a very kind human being who is doing everything he can to help people like me and others understand what objective reality really means. If we were measuring the subjective quality of character you would be proving another very fine point that is not on the written page.

My problem, Brian, is that "I" don't live in that objective reality. "I" live in a subjective one. All outer experiences filter inside to become inner experiences, and other inner experiences intrude that I have no context for. Ideas become experiences also ; experiences become visions of those experiences, and rules we were taught become truths only to unravel against the test of time.

In that inner world of my personal experience, objective facts from experience, education, even teamwork on design, testing and research are just another set of facts that, through my subjective mind, adds to the subjective ones. It all goes into the same bin before I see it.

Separate from the above there is also illusion. Subjective truths are not the same as illusion, they are constant inner truths that don't change even if we want them to, just like objective truths. They can be tested personally and pass the test better than the experience of outer reality. These subjective, personal, inner truths may indeed be connected to objective ones, but we don't know that today.

Should anyone keep those silent, as if they were a Jew living in Nazi Germany, in fear of discovery?

A lover of truth must work with what they can test or research out, and separate objective truths, subjective truths, principles, conjectures, illusion and imagination , knowing that the first two are about as far as they will be able to boil experience down to.

If they really can separate the first two from the others, that's an ongoing task since our conditioning is always pressing upon our impressions. And the distinction between inner and outer truths, subjective and objective fact? It will only be by the vote of others, not one's own capacity. But what is that peer group who can accurately make that vote?

They must be versed in both the same inner and outer truths to qualify.

You see Brian, the actual experiment has already been conducted and a review of results is given further down.

Why I promoted the experiment and offered to partipate was because I don't claim to really understand Atheism, though it seems to me an even stronger case can be made for it once you accept the subjective world of experience and conditioning, and even this western location, that affects us differently. Different cultures.

But to participate each Individual would have to pay a cost.

They would have to own their membership in the "I don't really know" club. No one would participate if they believed they really knew.

You see Brian, the experiment has already been conducted. You started it.

You introduced the "I don't really know club".

We have so many who joined.

Then I provide an easy test of the actual membership.

And you can set the number of folks who actually signed up for that.

At that point they each feel no need to test any hypothesis.

They are, under the packaging, actually members of the "I know best club" in objective truth.

Many Social Science experiments present s study to subjects that is only tangentially related to the actual study, in order to avoid folks altering their behavior based on their perceived purpose of the study.

"The world would be a much better place if people simply did as I say"

William F. Buckley.

So, with apologies, I took advantage of your "I don't know club" and the positive responses, too conduct a test. Nine members claimed they didn't actually know truth though they held various beliefs.

Only two (Appreciative and I) volunteered to actually test the possibility that an opposite view, which we could choose, might contain some truth we don't yet know. And my vote doesn't count since I concocted the experiment.

If "I don't know" membership was in fact an objective truth, we would see the count of members who claimed membership and the count of those who signed up for the experiment to learn something new by trying something new, much closer than it actually is.

This supports the theory that people, even people who claim to be objective about themselves and life, aren't. And that a belief in objectivity is still pretty much a belief and not while connected to objective reality, hopelessly connected to subjective self image.

[Spence Tepper]

Oops typo.
Last sentence should read
"And that a belief in objectivity is still pretty much a belief and not directly connected to objective reality, but hopelessly and directly connected for all time to subjective self image.

[777]

hopelessly and directly connected for all time to subjective self image.

LET ME DEFEND

Nobody is lost that way for ever. :-)

But an objective year can be a subjective. ( lets say ) 'long time'

[JB]

Brian, what was it that made you a devotee for 35 years? That's an immense portion of one's life. I can't imagine you would have dedicated your life to this belief system if you weren't fairly certain of it at the time. Or was it just what it provided you with, namely hope.

I think that full acceptance of atheism necessarily involves the loss of hope, because genuine hope ultimately has no correspondence to the facts of life. Our most fundamental drive is survival and our most fundamental desire is positive experience. Neither of these can be ultimately fulfilled and this is indicative of an essential incongruity that exists at heart of life. That fact that we are programmed for something we can never have is what makes life fundamentally absurd and not just its inherently meaningless, as Albert Camus argued.

I disagree with atheists that ignore the absurdity of life and try to salvage notions such as hope. They are not accepting the inexorable conclusions of their worldview.

[Jen]

Spence says: You see Brian, the experiment has already been conducted. You started it.
You introduced the "I don't really know club".

So true. Brian, your blog has been the strongest influence in my moving away from my belief in Sant Mat. It took some years but it did help me realise how naive I was.

I also have learned from Spence and Jim (wish he was still commenting here) and others on this blog with all their different opinions, especially the feisty bloggers like tAo and Jesse.

Brian your blog has been a wonderful service to others and I also want to remind you that its the diversity of opinions that make it so very interesting.

[777]

Even an atheist without questions might
possibly have a question once in a while

For everybody here
I like to pose one :

If Heaven would exist and you are there

Is is a situation of to be loved - all the time
or
to Love . . All the time ( time_space eventually )

77

[777]

or something else. . . . .

[Appreciative Reader]

Quote JB : “I think that full acceptance of atheism necessarily involves the loss of hope”

Only because you seem to conflate atheism with hard atheism. The latter is one category of the former, not its entirety.

To use Brian’s analogy (albeit turning his particular message on its head) : it is a bit like buying a ticket to the billion-dollar mega lottery. To begin with -- unless you actually know how the whole operation works -- for all you know the draw itself may be rigged. Further, even if it isn’t rigged, your chances of winning are infinitesimal. Nevertheless, there is cause for hope.

True, it is only a small sliver of … well, of potential. Nevertheless, that sliver, that potential, does exist. As such, there is cause for hope. Whether that cause actually results in hope (or in despair at its sheer improbability, or in complete indifference) -- and if it does result in hope, then how much hope -- that I’d say would be a function of your temperament (and perhaps your circumstances as well, but probably primarily your temperament).

“Our most fundamental drive is survival and our most fundamental desire is positive experience. Neither of these can be ultimately fulfilled and this is indicative of an essential incongruity that exists at heart of life. That fact that we are programmed for something we can never have is what makes life fundamentally absurd ”

Not just absurd but actually tragic, in a sense. That’s a very insightful statement, JB. Food for thought, absolutely. I thought over what you’ve said there, rolled that thought around my tongue as it were, and enjoyed the underlying perspective of reality that that expresses. Well said! I agree with you fully.

“I disagree with atheists that ignore the absurdity of life”

Sure. In as much as someone (whether atheist or theist or whatever) might ignore (willfully or otherwise) what is unarguably true, I agree with your disagreement.

“and try to salvage notions such as hope”

Again, in as much as some atheist may pin their hope on denial (or ignorance, or misunderstanding) of the true nature of things, absolutely, I agree with your disagreement with them.

“They are not accepting the inexorable conclusions of their worldview.”

Straw man.

(In as much, that is, as you’re clearly implying here that all atheists who haven’t lost hope are not accepting the inexorable conclusions of their worldview. And if you’re not actually implying that, then I'm afraid your statement, while true, is entirely meaningless : it would then tantamount to saying, in effect, that “Those who do not accept the inexorable conclusions of their worldview, do not in fact accept those conclusions”.)

Not all atheists do that. (“Not accept the inexorable conclusions of their worldview”, that is.) Nor is there any reason to imagine that all atheists who do accept those inexorable conclusions are necessarily bereft of hope.

Whether you have hope (or despair, or plain indifference) is primarily, in this context, a function of your own temperament.

First of all, like I’ve already said, hope of the potential of mystical fulfillment that is outside of the common run of everyday experience is certainly open to the perfectly reasonable soft atheist -- provided they are so inclined.

And in any case, there is no reason to imagine that even the hard atheist must necessarily always remain bereft of hope. There is more than enough to look forward to, even for the hard atheist, provided they are so inclined -- and of course, assuming that their circumstances are not exceptionally dire *.

.

* Sure, if one’s circumstances are so very dire that they literally do not offer any hope at all of any kind of succor, then the hard atheist will not have access to any hopes pinned on to the supranormal that the theist and, to a lesser extent, the soft atheist may actually have access to. Sure, that much I can agree with. It’s kind of tautological, actually, a direct derivative of the very definition of the term ‘hard atheist’ : but it’s still a valid and interesting insight.

On the other hand, I suppose it balances out. The hard atheist (who, as you say, has clearly examined the implications of his worldview) is also without the fears and neuroses that plague some/many theists, as well as the niggling uncertainty that the soft atheist might harbor.

.

But this insight (that is, that portion of your comment that I do agree with), while valid and interesting in itself, is ultimately pointless, in as much as the truth is what it is, irrespective of how our approach to it might affect us.

And hard atheism remains quite as much a logical fallacy, and a misunderstanding of the full implication of the concept of the burden of proof, as blind faith **.

.

** Although, again, I’d argue that, in all cases, one’s subjective belief is probably always “reasonable”, even if one were to literally worship the FSM by devoutly putting fresh strands of spaghetti in one’s personal shrine every morning, as long as one is clear that one's belief is simply subjective. To that extent I have no disagreement with the hard atheist, just as I have no disagreement with the theist, as long as they realize the essential subjectivity of their respective stances, and do not try to proselytize their personal subjective perspectives.

[JB]

Yes, it is absolutely tragic.

I guess I should have qualified my description as applying to the atheist that deeply ponders the necessary implications of their orientation. I did not consider distinctions of "hard and "soft" atheism. Considering that distinction, this would apply to the "hard" atheist.

This "hard" atheist approaches life with the understanding that life just a wink of existence, and this wink of existence is throughly suffused with a disproportionate amount pain, struggle, and hardship.

The "hard" atheist understands that there are only contrived surface "meanings" to anything and that everything we are, do, and love is inescapably destined for disintegration. The "hard" atheist understands that this is what life is, that this is all that life is, and that there is nothing else.

Life is ultimately tragic because it is drenched in pain and relentless struggle, consists in categorically unfulfillable drives, and ends in nothing. As such, it is all for nothing. All of the this pain and hardship is for nothing.

The hardest of "hard" atheists would likely resonate with philosopher David Benatar with his work Better Never to Have Been: The Harm of Coming into Existence. I certainly do. I embraced antinatalism from a relatively young age. I have never, and would never, contribute to bringing a human being into existence. I consider the evolution of sentience as the single most tragic development in the history of the cosmos.

The "hard" atheist knows that hope is a religious delusion.

[Spence Tepper]

Hi JB
You wrote
"The hardest of "hard" atheists would likely resonate with philosopher David Benatar with his work Better Never to Have Been: The Harm of Coming into Existence. I certainly do. I embraced antinatalism from a relatively young age. I have never, and would never, contribute to bringing a human being into existence. I consider the evolution of sentience as the single most tragic development in the history of the cosmos."

So there is the fact of our limited existence as a bag of chemicals in a fairly thin bag at that, easily injured, easily ended.

And then, the amazing things people do with it.

The stunning things, the elegant and beatiful acts, creations, sentiments.

Just awesome.

The fleeting of a Butterflies' wings is stunning. Lifespan of the butterfly?

The butterfly cares not.

[JB]

"The butterfly cares not."

Good for the butterfly. The reason the butterfly doesn't care is because it doesn't have the cognitive capacity to do such . The human being does and this too contributes to the tragic nature of human existence.

[Spence Tepper]

Hi JB
You wrote
"The reason the butterfly doesn't care is because it doesn't have the cognitive capacity to do such ."

Is it intelligence or lack of it that causes someone to label a tragedy the inevitable, which they have no control over?

Maybe the butterfly has a lesson to teach us.

Maybe every lovely, smiling flower, whose life is so very short, but who smiles brighter than most any other creature, has a lesson for us.

Maybe that flower is wiser.

[Dungeness]

Our most fundamental drive is survival and our most fundamental desire is positive experience. Neither of these can be ultimately fulfilled and this is indicative of an essential incongruity that exists at heart of life. That fact that we are programmed for something we can never have is what makes life fundamentally absurd

Mystics would argue our fundamental desire is bliss, not
the immediacy of physical survival nor experiences of
of creation.

The dilemma however is that we've lost awareness of
our true source which is god ("totality of consciousness),
Instead our condition is exactly as you describe - driven
for fleeting experiences outside, terrified of physical
death, lonely, never satisfied. We chase after trash
and ignore treasure.

[JB]

Just to clarify, I'm defining atheism in the broadest yet simplest possible sense: nothing beyond this life. Someone may consider oneself an atheist because they don't believe in an anthropomorphic supreme being, while still entertaining notions of "spiritual evolution", immaterial consciousness, life after death, etc. I'm not talking about those people.

As a "hard" atheist, one would understand that there is nothing beyond this life. And if one is radically honest with themself, they would concede that this solitary life is thoroughly unsatisfying in virtually every way. Both individually and collectively, it is disproportionately negative.

After all, we are just vehicles for genetic material. Yet we are the ones that must suffer and there is no pay off. Life just isn't worth it. Obviously this can only be realized after the fact, from the state of existence. But when one realizes they would have chosen not exist, that's when one realizes not to create another human existence.

Maybe there are few "hard" atheists. Maybe it's better that way for the species. Mankind would die out rather quickly if there were.

[Spence Tepper]

A hard atheist would take a different tack. At least the very successful ones I've known.

And that is, "make the best of the time you have."

We are such a strange genetic anomaly, make the most of it.

One such friend points out that against the vast spans of time the human race has existed for t the blink of an eye.

If there is no purpose, all the more reason to create for ourselves.

Our meaning and our eternity are then our contribution to our survival and development.

Even so, life on earth has come and gone.

Still their message has been, 'ask the more reason to use what you were given constructivy'.

[JB]

Making the most involves not bringing anyone else into the horror of existence.

[Spence Tepper]

"Making the most involves not bringing anyone else into the horror of existence."

This is where subjective personal experience comes in.

Even the best, classic movies come to an end.

But to have seen them is a joy.

Had I known my son would have neurological challenges and physical disabilities that would become insurmountable, I would have still proceeded to do my part in bringing him here and raising him. He is an amazing, empathic and mature being.

He is happy.

The world is a better place because he is here. And while at every year there are dashed hopes and disappointments, still there is that intimate experience of kindness, patience, connection. That intimacy I had no idea could exist between two people. Not to this degree.

His world is not a large one, but the connection, the sentiment, even in simply and silently viewing the changing seasons together is filled with the wealth of a shared experience.

No, I never knew that was possible until Sam taught me.

Life, to live it fully, it is a gift.

[JB]

Of course you can't imagine differently, after the fact. This is understandable, though this still isn't true the for all parents that have children who suffer (watch the Doc The Boy Whose Skin Fell Off)

The point us, you are doing no harm harm by not bringing someone into existence. You are certainly not harming the person, as they don't even exist yet to be harmed.

I find it to be the most compassionate track one can take, but I understand that it may be hard, if not impossible, for some to grasp. After all, like suicide, it runs contrary to biological instinct.

[Jen]

I agree with JB that life is tragic with all its pain and struggle and in the end, if there is nothing after death, whats the point of it all.

Spence, I do admire your positivity and courage in your attitude towards your son. I suppose these lessons in life are what its all about, doing our best to be kind and also grateful for what we have.

Believing in an afterlife makes such a huge difference because at least there will be some reward or even if there is some kind of punishment at the end of this life, we will still continue and progress into the future in another life form. So it all comes down to our own original belief system which can't be verified until after death!

Gurinder has told us that there is no-one who will come to meet us when we die, we are all One, so all these little drops (souls?) are going to merge into the One ocean.

And then, maybe we are living in some kind of computer simulation like the Matrix movie? Did we choose to play a part in this game? Were we created by some breed of highly advanced aliens or even our future selves? Ah well, it is quite interesting...

[Spence Tepper]

Hi Jen and JB

Is life terrible? Is it awesome?
I'd say it's mixed.

But it does seem to me, from a purely utilitarian view, that we ourselves reduce the psychological burden among those around us by keeping a vision of hope for progress, and seeking each day to be understanding, helpful and gently encouraging.

And there is great personal reward in achieving small successes, even amidst setbacks.

To embrace life, and to develop love within ourselves seems to me the highest creation. The bouquet of creation itself.

Every parent carries that duty.

But it is not a stretch to see how important it is in a friend or co-worker.

The way of the cross, to embrace life's pain as the cost to live fully and to embrace the passion of every moment.

[Dungeness]

Gurinder has told us that there is no-one who will come to meet us when we die, we are all One, so all these little drops (souls?) are going to merge into the One ocean.

Hi Jen, Gurinder's statement surprised me but examples abound
of past masters making seemingly contradictory remarks too. In
every case though, the answers are addressed to those specific
questioners. Or more generally to others in the audience tacitly
asking the same thing.

Maybe the person became too invested in ritual guarantees or
self-indulgent "I'm special" thinking and needed hints of the
urgency to see Master inside before death. So the answer
became a shake-up. Tough love.

Because I love to speculate, I wonder if he wanted to remind us
we've already merged in the Ocean and have just lost our
awareness of it. In any event, we won't need a checkbox that
the Master is coming to meet us.

I notice Gurinder pointedly didn't say the questioner would not
be looked after. Protection will be there no matter how many
fears, doubts, or mistaken notions you have. GIHF will never say
"I'm abandoning you".

No speculation, or suppositions or so-called claims of new RSSB
versions will ever change it either.

[Jen]

Everyone clings to their beliefs. Its because people are desperately hoping that there is such a thing as a perfect living master or that some saintly being from some religion in the past is going to save them or that there is life after death and we can reincarnate and will be able to take birth in a better world than this. It takes a very brave person who can say, when I'm dead thats it, its over. I know when I think that way its very depressing. So just going to wait it out doing the best I can and hope that my life has been actually worthy of finding something better than this.

[Spence Tepper]

Hi Jen
You wrote a beautiful comment.

"Everyone clings to their beliefs. Its because people are desperately hoping that there is such a thing as a perfect living master or that some saintly being from some religion in the past is going to save them or that there is life after death and we can reincarnate and will be able to take birth in a better world than this."

That isn't always the case, but it is the starting place for many. They are worried about the future. Spirituality gives them a means to put those considerations aside, so they can be here now.

You wrote

" It takes a very brave person who can say, when I'm dead thats it, its over."

This is also part of getting closer to truth, but the actual truth is that we don't know.

We do know we are all connected, all part of the same genetic family. And we do know that our life is a breautiful movie with a beginning, a middle and an end. Were we players in another story before? Will we have a role after this one?

It takes a very brave person to live with the truth that this is all a beautiful mystery also. And acknowledging that truth, some people choose to practice hope and faith. But not in another life. Faith in the power within to play their role in this life to their best ability.

Belief isn't always knowledge. It's belief. Holding firmly to that is also an act of bravery.

But to claim they're is no life after this one is also a belief.

Concluding one way or the other is actually an illusion. We don't at this level really know.

The purpose of any belief should be to help us live this life, be fully in life to the highest standard we are capable of.

You wrote,

"I know when I think that way its very depressing. So just going to wait it out doing the best I can and hope that my life has been actually worthy of finding something better than this..…"

Find the "spirit", the purity and joy, the fulness in the silence of every moment. Focus on that, merge in that. That happiness is the ultimate wisdom.

Yah, Preachy. It's my way.

[JB]

The clinging to the belief in immortality is the natural result of the biological survival impulse in the psychological domain. We are built for surviving and cannot imagine anything but surviving.

This combined with the fact that the mind is categorically incapable of forming any conception or image of personal nonexistence, leads one into the very slippery delusion that they will just keep going.

[777]

@Jen
Yes , sit our time out is a really depressing idea for a God in spé and always was

even with some amnesia applied :-)

777

[Jen]

Hi Spence,

I do appreciate your kindness, although I am not religious I can see that you like to help others which is good, and also 777 with his funny little comments I can't quite work out! Atheists seem to be quite cold and intellectual and a bit up themselves lol. Gotta laugh, its such a weird and wonderful (sometimes) also mysterious life.

[Dungeness]

This combined with the fact that the mind is categorically incapable of forming any conception or image of personal nonexistence, leads one into the very slippery delusion that they will just keep going.

How do you know it's delusional? Or slippery? Unless of course,
you've categorically denied any possibility of a non- material
existence.

Is all mystic testimony a sacrilege upon that that holiest of Ch.
of Churchless conjectures: Thou art a chance assemblage
of matter that evolved into a self-aware brain. Behold, the
unpastor sayeth "when thine body-brain circles the drain,
thou shalt soon be out of pain" :)

[Dungeness]

Behold, the
unpastor sayeth "when thine body-brain circles the drain,
thou shalt soon be out of pain" :)

In the interest of a counter joke , the mystic sayeth:
"Go inside, grasshopper, it'll be wondrous sights, BFF's,
and breatharian bliss unto eternity. Trust me. If it don't
work out, we'll worship at the Ch.of Churchless altar
and circle the drain together."

[777]

@JEN wrote
é funny little comments I can't quite work out! "

It wasn't funny , it is as it is

Who else JEN could be
other than God Almighty
but temporary without knowledge & power

A very clever setting to produce Oceans of Love ( while we discuss haha )
Most of us just don't know and that is the clue !

777

[Appreciative Reader]

Dear Spence,

It was both touching and inspiring to read about your son.

Absolutely, your approach to this whole thing is no less than noble. This courage, this optimism and hope and positivity, in the face of what many would think of as adversity, I lack the words to express my full appreciation of how you choose to see this and to deal with it.

Thanks for sharing! And my very best wishes for both Sam and you!

.

However, it occurs to me : Although JB’s stance seems to be diametrically opposed to yours, nevertheless in his own way his own approach shows a great deal of courage, as well as self-abnegation and selfless compassion.

Each of your stances is admirable, and I don’t think that the fact that they seem to be so very different from each other, your respective attitudes, takes away one jot from the other’s approach.

[Appreciative Reader]

Hello again, JB.

As I was saying to Spence just now, I find your attitude to be courageous as well as selflessly compassionate. I admire how uncompromisingly you face up to your own conception of truth.

However, I wonder if you’ve fully explored the full implications of your attitude? (That is, perhaps you have, in fact I suppose it is probable you have, given how seriously you take this: nevertheless, I wanted to share with you this thought, this perspective, that occurred to me as I read your views.)

I suppose, to put this in Operations Research terms, you’re basically going for a risk-averse stance. You’re assigning a higher weightage to negatives than you do to positives.

And this is a subjective assessment. You’re perfectly justified in accepting your own personal subjective assessment of these things and issues.

However :

It seems to me you’re making the decision on your offsprings’ behalf. Which is fine, but I was wondering if you’ve actually thought about it this way.

No doubt you yourself would have preferred not to have existed at all. That is the sense I get from how you describe your worldview. (And indeed, your view gels closely with those of a man called Siddharth, whom I kind of admire, who had said very similar things!)

But might you be simply assuming that, had your child(ren) been born, they would have held an attitude similar to yours? What if their subjective weightages turned out different than yours? What if it turned out that they held, instead, to a cheerful, optimistic and hopeful view of life, much like Spence expresses here? Perhaps they’d value the positives of their lives far more than the negatives?

Sure, as you say : You aren’t causing any harm. I agree!

But might you perhaps be preventing a great deal of beauty and happiness and joy in the world as well, which for all you know they (these hypothetical children) might value above their inevitable “suffering”?

.

I’m not trying to change your mind, let me hasten to add! Nor would I presume to criticize your personal and closely-held decisions about your own life.

It’s just that I agree with much of what you say, without necessarily agreeing all the way, and wanted to explore this line of thought a bit more along with you, if you’d care to, that is.

[Dungeness]

It takes a very brave person who can say, when I'm dead thats it, its over. I know when I think that way its very depressing. So just going to wait it out doing the best I can and hope that my life has been actually worthy of finding something better than this.

I's rather be a coward and not wait. Frankly, that's one of the
benefits of belief. Just imagine turning depression over to
someone who might help even if they're make-believe.

Inner conversation can be therapeutic. They only lock you
up if you start acting crazy ;)

[JB]

AR: "But might you perhaps be preventing a great deal of beauty and happiness and joy in the world as well, which for all you know they (these hypothetical children) might value above their inevitable “suffering”?"

Thanks for the question. Yes, it is always possible that a child brought into existence would have a life of less suffering but in my estimation the odds are firmly against that. I do consider life to be disproportionately negative, inherently meaningless and futile.

I realize that I am not depriving someone of any potential happiness because that someone does not exist to be deprived. I am preventing the possibility of some potential marginal happiness but also preventing the certainty of a suffering being . I'm willing to take that trade off.

This being said, for those that have the means, I think that adopting a child (already living, of course) into a loving home is absolutely wonderful.

[Jen]

Hi Dungeness,

You talk about handing over to someone who might be make-believe. Also mentioning inner conversation and acting crazy. Hmmmm

I can usually sense the motive behind someone's comment but yours has puzzled me and it felt almost like a Zen koan when I was trying to figure it out. So, I found a koan that suits me and I send this with love...

“We're lost where the mind can't find us"

[Dungeness]

“We're lost where the mind can't find us"

Hi Jen,

I feel like a pinball trapped in a Zen koan now :)

Right, it's terrible to lose our minds. It's always useful to
to keep up appearances of sanity.

I was just parroting a mystic who said we should create
a personal relationship with the Master inside. Converse,
unload worries, lodge complaints, share depression.
Kind of a a teddy bear for grownups.

Why not? It beats hearing the same old tunes running
through my head . It's always seemed to me I'm still
just a kid afraid of the dark after all.

[Jen]

Hello Dungeness - pinball in a Zen koan - lol

I've just been watching the following talk on youtube. I'm realising that I have to wake up to being more positive. We must stop giving away our own personal power to another being and take back our power. I'm so flipping old but its never too late.

The Simulation Theory - We Make Our Reality - Tom Campbell
(11:19)

What we can do with our consciousness. We are actually co-creators of this reality - 1) the way we interpret things, each person interprets their own way of seeing things, creating our own personal reality - 2) by our interactions, if we are a user, hard to get along with, we will then create a reality where people don't like us and thats because of the choices we make - 3) a person's intent modifies future probability. We can quantify the probable future with our intent.

Cheers,
Jen

[Dungeness]

I have to wake up to being more positive. We must stop giving away our own personal power to another being and take back our power. I'm so flipping old but its never too late.

Ditto.

Children are natural Zen masters;
their world is brand new in each and every moment.
- John Bradshaw