Until you get around to the science of cosmology. It keeps lapping over into theology, just a little.

Materialism, extreme materialism anyway, left me dissatisfied quite a long time ago. The real world's important, but the good and the kindly have this habit of believing there's more.

That doesn't come up with me. I never have to ask myself why I was so horny ten minutes ago because I know durn well why -- and afterwards, I'm just happy and often dreamy if circumstances allow. I take my time about getting that sandwich or a nice omelette, too. I savor the glow, and wait for appetite to return.

Huevos rancheros can be something of an aphrodisiac if you don't spare the hot peppers but still give it peppery depth.

It is better to be thought a fool than to speak and leave no doubt.

Hovos
 

Eu amo hovos!!!

Hi firebase. Welcome aboard.

More of what?
 

I just don't think there is "more," and why does there need to be? Can't goodness and kindness be manifestations of our brains' ability to remember, think, and imagine? Materialism does not preclude any acts of kindness or prevent emotions.

What is this "more" of which you speak?

Heh! I haven't checked in on the board for a few days, and I'm impressed at the discussion my question has inspired.

My father and his family were devout Christians and I was raised in a denomination called the Disciples of Christ or "The First Christians." If I ever was to go back to the Christian Church, it would be as a Disciple of Christ. They're actually pretty cool. There's no special catechism or set of beliefs that you are expected to learn. The Disciples believe that God speaks to each one of us directly just as Jesus did to the first Christians - his disciples. All you do is read the Bible and pray and come to your own understanding of God. They believe that NO ONE can stand between you and God. The minister of the congregation IS the congregation.

I don't get all this stuff about hellfire and damnation and never will. I think there most likely is an "Intelligence of the Universe" for lack of better words. I think this Intelligence is difficult to describe or define, and we each have our own personal understanding of it or lack of understanding.

Its all good, as far as I'm concerned. But I have difficulty with someone who believes that infants go to hell or that sex outside of marriage is fornication which will be punished by an eternity of flame. I feel sorry for people who have been brain washed into believing such things. Its one reason I feel that my current fling is not going to go anywhere. I am very uncomfortable with a person who espouses such beliefs, even though he seems like a decent and kind man in other ways.

We've already clashed a few times on the subject and have both agreed not to bring up the topic anymore. I've tried to reason with him on the matter out of compassion as much as anything. Like Dana's grandfather, he is convinced he's going to hell when he dies. Too bad.

Chicken. :p
Welcome to the Cellar.:D

And if he's indeed a good and decent man, his soul's in for a heck of a shock, no? Wonder how many days of those "...been there ten thousand years..." it'd take him to get over it?

Firebase -- welcome aboard -- I've seen a fairish few of people around here who voluntarily "remove all doubt." Speaking of hell, they catch a lot of it from me -- inasmuch as my doubts are removed. I also try and be encouraging when I see them doing better.

Well, Pangloss, I guess you're a very devout materialist if you have to ask that one. It's also a very hard question for those with any touch of mysticism in their mental makeup to make any answer to that would persuade the skeptic. I would make a very poor mystic, myself -- just not enough of that in me.

The religious end up talking about faith a lot in response to this kind of question -- which may satisfy the religious but leaves the skeptic either cold or just unmoved. And this is just about the sort of thing I'm going to close this post with, so ain't I unsatisfactory. Thing is, even the most irreligious persons are no strangers to faith -- as a general rule, faith in other persons' integrity.

Science-fiction author Robert A. Heinlein was, and proudly, a determinedly rational atheist. He had no reason that convinced him to expect an afterlife, and finding no proof, he wasn't going to. Now as for me, I hope and expect to meet Robert Heinlein in Heaven.

And I like eggs too. A lot. Passionately.

Heinlein Studies
 

I presented a paper at the recent American Culture/Popular Culture Association Conference here in Atlanta. My session was in architecture, but I noticed they had a whole session on Heinlein; evidently, that guy has struck a chord with many. I'll have to check him out.

Belief, faith, hope...those words just don't apply much to the way I approach reality. That's doesn't mean I don't laugh, or feel content from time to time, I just see no reason to wish for things I have no control over, especially someone else's integrity (been let down too many times). Whatever happens happens. That's why, like Dr. Pangloss said (and hence my cellar name), "It's the best of all possible worlds."

I'm a huge fan... just be warned, if incest is something that really puts you off, he may not be your man.

Incestuous
 

Well, maybe all those people I saw going to that Heinlein session had "something in common." Whether they were victims or perpetrators of incest, I could not tell; maybe neither.

What is special about Heinlein; in a sentence.

I wouldn't be too upset at finding Belief, faith, and hope missing from your daily list of experiences. If you've got the Modern, distorted version of those words within your life your probably a walking sack of misery. Feel lucky that your at least finding your own definitions.

Belief.... in ALMOST all cases belief is nothing more than what you've been conditioned to accept as a truth. The conditioning comes from the beliefs of your parents, the beliefs of the religion that you may or may not of had the choice to attend, it comes from the nation you belong to, etc. In short, ANY group that you belong too is pushing some "truth" on you in hopes that you'll accept it and increase their ranks. Belief should be the warmth of understanding that arises when you search inward past your conditioning and all the noise seeking answers.

faith....Many people recognize faith as something your "suppose" to have regardless of any truth of reality that may be proving it wrong. I've received faith in those things that I've found to be completely true within my heart. My insights are proof that gives me faith, I don't try and cultivate faith by crossing my fingers, clicking my heels together, and saying "There's no place like home."

hope...implies something that does not exist, but someday it might. If you have the two items above in the TRUE sense then Hope is never required because you will already have all you need.

:)

Well, I'm certainly not that, but I'm incredibly cynical and often stoic.

I see you're a dualist. I'm not a dualist. The only heart I "believe" in is the one that pumps my blood and keeps me alive (for now). "Soul," "heart," "spirit," I don't do those things. And yes, this does lead to my assertion that "free will" does not exist either.

Nonetheless, I'm not a walking sack of misery, much to the chagrin of those who think I should or wish I was because of the way I think. So many assume that I should be miserable when they hear what I say. But I'm not.:neutral:

Pangloss62,

Thanks for your insights.

Just for clarification:
I did not try to imply that you or people with similar views to you are the miserable ones.

Heart was a bad choice of words on my part. I hesitate to equate it to "soul" or "spirit". A better description would be: The part of my existence that knows the deepest truth ,and damned if I know what that is or what to call it, I just know first hand that it does exist.

I would be interested in hearing your response to the truth/un-truth you see in my definitions of belief, faith, and hope.

Well, let me see....hmmm

Just what type of "knowledge" are you talking about here? Is it possible it was/is just a strong feeling; maybe "intuition" would be a good word?

The only objective areas of truth I'm aware of are in science and mathematics; but then again, I'm limited by my commitment to empiricism. I would explain your "knowlege" of what you call "the deepest truth" is/was a particular biochemical moment triggered by certain synapse firings brought on by external sensual stimuli. Otherwise, it could only be "supernatural," and I can't embrace that.

I think intuition is a valid form of conciousness and explains much phenomena that some people think is supernatural like knowing who's on the ringing phone, thinking about someone and then seeing them, etc.

What happens internally when I feel/see/understand/experience (pick a word you like) these moments of insight or correct knowledge? Intuition is not far off. It’s that feeling you get when searching for the answer to a question someone has verbalized. In your head you run thru a list of possible answers, and you can get suggestions from others too. You grade each answer…. That’s pretty close, No that’s not it, maybe, that doesn't sound right etc, but you keep looking for another possible answer. Why keep searching? You keep searching because the light bulb hasn’t come on yet. That moment when you know beyond any doubt that you just received the answer. You feel lighter than air you feel peaceful. If you’ve never experienced that, I don’t know how to explain it to you in a manner that would do it justice. And the knowledge I’m talking about here is not “ oh that’s right, his name was John”. I’m talking about in depth questions that require deep answers.

I have no doubt that there is something chemically going on similar to your explanation. My question then becomes which came first the insight or the chemical reaction? Did the insight cause the chemical change or did the chemical change cause the insight. Do you know of any studies or empirical evidence that sufficiently proves this one way or the other?

Whoa. I have to work right now, but I'll get back to ya on this one.

You can't really do that with an artist... he was years ahead of his time, great artists today still pay tribute (copy) to him.
The Heinlein thing with "incest" is that he deals with issues that are common to many in his books. Many siblings close in age go through a "curiosity" period with each other and the Oedipus complex is a real thing for many, even if for a very short time... in some of his books he touches on these things.
Problem is that the sickness of the Victorians is still, very much, with us.

Tell him he's a lunatic. Everyone knows that dead babies go in the blender; baptized babies go first.

A sentence? I think a better, far more complete answer would be to use a whole novel.

I found Starship Troopers a seminal experience in my early teens, but I think I would recommend the even thicker Time Enough For Love, his masterwork, as the what's-special. Like most Heinlein prose, it's transparent and reads easily -- we're not dealing in Frank Herbert epigrams here, but a prose style that doesn't look like a style. It's a speedy read.

It's also probably the work that led rkzenrage to put out that incest teaser -- though a subtheme running through this book is how hard a normally-fertile man who lives eight hundred years has to work to avoid incestuous contacts, by his stern standards, with his remote descendants. It's the avoidance of incest that's the theme, not incest.

The story's almost like something Roger Zelazny might have done -- many of his heroes and villains seem very ordinary people on the surface, but underneath they have something so remarkable as to render them well-nigh freakish. Heinlein's transparent prose, though, isn't the Zelazny near-poetry.