Back to basics: our faithless faith and commenting policies

It never hurts to return to the basics. So in this easy-to-write post I'm going to copy in one of the first posts I wrote after I started this blog in 2004, "Our Creedless Creed," plus this blog's commenting policies.

Regarding the latter, note that comments are supposed to stick to the subject matter of a post. I'm flexible about this, but today two commenters (UM and Nimfa) engaged in an almost entirely irrelevant series of eleven chat comments on a post about the RSSB guru's authoritarianism. 

That's unacceptable.

As you can read in the commenting policies, off-topic comment conversations should go in an Open Thread, which I call "free speech for comments." When people read a blog post, a newspaper story, or such, then click on the comments, they expect to find comments about the subject that's been written about.

Hijacking comments for purely personal purposes is a form of spam. Again, I'm fine with an occasional off-topic comment, and admit that I haven't been consistent in enforcing this rule, but don't be surprised if your comment is deleted if it doesn't pertain to the topic of a blog post.

Here's Our Creedless Creed. It's in the category of  "Basics of our faithless faith." I'm impressed that after 18 years of blogging, during which I've become steadily more atheistic, there's nothing that I would change in the creedless creed other than the last item. Currently I don't think it is likely that death provides any final answers. 

If you think that any of these statements are inaccurate, make your case in a comment on this post. That will be totally on-topic! I'll add numbers to the items to make it easier to comment on them.

UPDATE: I decided to add "any possible" before "immaterial reality" to make clear that currently there is no evidence of an immaterial reality separate from our universe. And I added "may" in the final item of the creed to make clear that if consciousness ends with death, as is very likely, getting any answer after death is low probability but still possible.

Our Creedless Creed

Note: to make this Creed more readable, some qualifiers have been omitted. So "God" signifies God/ultimate reality/final truth, not just a personal divinity. And "religion" signifies religion/spiritual path/philosophy, not just a mainstream theology.

(1) There is no objective proof that any religion knows the truth about God. If there were such proof, most people on Earth would have converted to that faith long ago and all scientists would be believers.

(2) Spirituality thus is an individual affair. Proof of any metaphysical realities that exist will be subjective, not demonstrable to others.

(3) Every person has the right to pursue their own spiritual quest without interference, so long as he or she doesn't interfere with the rights of others.

(4) Since the veracity of each and every religion is unprovable, equally unprovable are the moral and ethical tenets derived from any and all religious teachings.

(5) Thus morality also is an individual affair. There are no absolute laws of right and wrong as there are absolute laws of physics. Subjectivity rules in ethics.

(6) Individual ethical decisions may be formed into a collective codification of societal norms, or laws. These are purely human, not divine.

(7) Science is the surest means of finding truth. Theory, experiment, analysis of data: such are the tools of science, whether directed toward knowing material or any possible immaterial reality.

(8) Religious teachings are hypotheses to be confirmed through individual research. As such, they must not be taken as gospel truth by adherents of a particular faith.

(9) Religious doubters, skeptics, and heretics should be honored for their efforts to assure that unproven assertions about God are not put forward as solid truth.

(10) Every adherent of a particular religion should say to himself or herself, "I could be wrong." If he or she won't do this, other people can say it for them: "You could be wrong."

(11) This creedless creed of the Church of the Churchless also could be wrong. It needs to be reexamined and revised regularly.

(12) Death may provide the final answers (if only momentarily). The spiritual quest is to get answers ahead of time. But the big question is, "What are the questions?"

And here's this blog's commenting policies.

You're welcome -- even more, encouraged -- to leave comments on Church of the Churchless posts. Some of the most interesting writing on this blog comes from other people, not me, Brian the Blogger.

All I ask is that comments be in accord with the following policies. Otherwise a comment probably will be deleted or edited.

(1) No personal attacks on me or other commenters. Challenge the message, not the messenger. Best: You're wrong, because... Semi-OK: You're a fool, because... Not-OK: You're a fool.

(2) No extreme obscenity. Write as if you were in a congenial coffeehouse discussion group, not a high school locker room after your team lost the game in the final seconds. Mild swear words are fine. But goddamn it, don't go over the top.

(3) No rants about the uselessness of this blog. If you're a religious believer, I can understand why this blog could make you angry. Solution: don't read it. If you need to vent, leave a comment on my "I Hate Church of the Churchless" anti-site, not here.

(4) No commercial or religious spam. Advertising, in a comment or a URL, obviously isn't acceptable. Neither are lengthy quotations from a religious scripture, or preachiness. See #5 below.

(5) No irrelevant comments. Please stick to the subject matter of a post in your comment. If you want to talk about something else, leave your comment in an Open Thread, email me with a blog post suggestion, or use the Google search box in the right sidebar to find a previous post on this blog concerning your "something else." (Note: Open Thread comments also should adhere to the policies above.)

(6) No trolling. On the Internet a "troll" is someone who tries to disrupt normal discussions through various annoying behaviors. Here's some ways to recognize a troll. Best response to them: no response. Their sad lives thrive on attention, so ignore them.

(7) No false "facts" about critical issues. As the saying goes, everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but not their own facts. This applies to this blog, especially about COVID-19 and other critical issues. Blatantly false comments won't be published if they're about life and death or other critical topics such as global warming.

Lastly, one of my pet peeves is how uncourteously many people behave on the Internet. "Flame wars" aren't productive, so try to keep your cool if you disagree with what somebody has said.

I agree with Wikipedia's take on Flaming: 

An Internet user typically generates a flame response to other posts or users posting on a site, and such a response is usually not constructive, does not clarify a discussion, and does not persuade others. Sometimes, flamers attempt to assert their authority, or establish a position of superiority over other users. Other times, a flamer is simply an individual who believes he or she carries the only valid opinion. This leads him or her to personally attack those who disagree. In some cases, flamers wish to upset and offend other members of the forum, in which case they can be called "trolls".

Comments

[UM]

He, MCS, once said to me, after I insisted that another satsangi hhad to behave as I wanted him to behave:

"In Rome we do what the romans do!"

He did not say "you are Roman or you have to become one".. "just behave in the public domain as a Roman"

In this virtual domain that belongs to Brian, we better behave as Brian wants us to behave.. we need not to become like him, nor to agree or disagree.

[Ron E.]

Hi Brian. Glad to see you are stressing the ‘rules’ re posting. If I can comment on two points.

(7) Science is the surest means of finding truth. Theory, experiment, analysis of data: such are the tools of science, whether directed toward knowing material or immaterial reality.

(12) Death provides the final answers (if only momentarily). The spiritual quest is to get answers ahead of time. But the big question is, "What are the questions

Not sure about No. 7: - “. . . toward knowing material or immaterial reality. I translate as physical or non-physical, I’m only aware of a physical universe (including mental phenomenon which has a physical origin). What do you mean by immaterial?

And No. 12: - “Death provides the final answers (if only momentarily).” I would have thought that death can’t provide any answers as death means that the entire organism ceases to function. – With no active brain, no thought, mind etc., there is no one to answer anything.

Thanks.

[Appreciative Reader]

Hey, Ron.

Here's my take on both your questions. Brian can correct me if he meant either differently.

Anything and everything answers to the methods of science. Actual, literal Harry Potter magic, should it exist, would answer to the methods of science. Actual, literal God/s, be it the crazy jealous genocidal Yhwh of the Bible, or the Greek (or Korean, or Indian) pantheon, or any other, also would answer to the methods of science. That's the beauty of science, there's nothing, nothing at all, that wouldn't answer to its methods.

So that to subscribe to a scientific worldview is not necessarily to bid goodbye to the search for a truly spiritual, as in other-worldly spiritual, reality. With emphasis on the "search". Should such a search appeal to one, that is.

Interested in the (stories of the) son et lumiere of RSSB? If you care enough to take the trouble, then do science on it! Interested in the (stories of the) yogic siddihis? If you care enough to take the time and effort, then do science on it!

Absolutely, you're right, there's no "immaterial", that we know. On the other hand, should you want to test the possibility of such, basis whichever story or stories appeal/s to you, then again, should you care enough to take the trouble, then use the methods of science to experiment, and to arrive at a reasonable rational answer.

As for death? Well, that all-important question (unless you've outgrown it, or unless you've never thought to ask it) --- "Is there life after death? Does our consciousness carry on after death? Are any of the afterlife stories and speculations we've heard of at all true?" --- we'll find answered when we pass. Either it's finito, or else it isn't. If it is --- as I'm sure it is! --- then that's the end to it. And if it isn't, well then, dying's when we'll finally know of that for sure, right?

[Brian Hines]

Ron and Appreciative Reader, thanks for your cogent comments. I was just about to edit the list of creedless principles to take out the last one about death and add "any possible" before "immaterial reality," but Appreciative Reader's comment reminded me what I must have meant about death.

Meaning, Ron is right that with an absence of consciousness, there's no one there to know that life after death isn't real. But it's possible that just before the light of consciousness turns off, a realization of "this is the end" could come over a person. And if the very unlikely event of life continuing on in some form occurs, then obviously death would bring the answer to what happens after death. So I think I'll leave the death creed in for now, but I added a "may" to it to make clear that if death is the end of consciousness, there's no way to get answers to anything after we die..

Regarding immaterial reality, yes, I envisioned that if it exists, the scientific method should be able to prove this. Otherwise we only have subjective claims, which don't amount to anything, since there already are many people in the world claiming to have gone to heaven, met God, and such -- and they aren't all in mental hospitals. But adding "any possible" seems like a good idea to me.

[Roger]

According to the most current and plausible, evidenced based conclusion within the scientific method of inquiry, a human being is dead when the brain enters the necrotic stage.

There is the previous stage of clinical death when there is no discernible neuro/electro/chemical activity within the brain, and this is the point where currently you are declared dead if you cannot be resuscitated.

Prior to that, clinical death was declared when you stopped breathing due to the heart stopping.

The actuality of death provides an on-going helpful reminder of causality that can inspire a life well lived based in equanimity and kindness.

Learning to be comfortable about the inevitability and uncertainty about death, helps to process the natural grieving process of the death of others in a healthy way.

[Dungeness]

@ Roger [ Learning to be comfortable about the inevitability and uncertainty about death, helps to process the natural grieving process of the death of others in a healthy way. ]

Indeed... yet I always felt more resonance with the call to embrace life
while accepting the inevitability and uncertainty of death.

"Do not go gentle into that good night...
Rage, rage against the dying of the light. "
-- Dylan Thomas

[Roger]

@ Dungeness .... Yes, embrace life ......................

The most amazing thing I discovered about life is, that no matter what happened yesterday, that you didn’t like, after a nights sleep, you get to start afresh so you don’t need to worry about it.

And if you don’t wake up the next morning you won’t be able to worry about it anyway.

So, for me, life presents two choices.

1. I can start each day refreshed and energized without being attached to the worries of the past and enjoy my day

or

2. I can continue to be attached to the past and bring that worry into my day and drain all the energy out of it, thus spoiling it.

Sometimes, life is as simple as that .......................

[I challenge you!]

I challenge you to watch the entire 3 hours, 37 minutes and 53 seconds of this podcast.

It manages to answer every question about why humans are so easily drawn into cults and religiousity. Most of the ah ha moments come closer to the end. It starts off telling one person’s story and slowly transitions into a universal tale of superficial morality propelled by ego fragility.