Is there a middle way between theism and atheism

[Belindi]

Eduk, I disagree with your first paragraph but agree with your second

-- Updated January 21st, 2017, 8:03 am to add the following --

Eduk, I disagree with much of your first paragraph but agree with your second

[Ormond]

One possible middle way...

It seems at least reasonable to propose that there may be higher life forms, on this planet and elsewhere, that human beings can't detect or comprehend.

Every other species on Earth is to some degree in this situation. You can show a squirrel the Internet, but they will have not the slightest comprehension of it. They see some lights flickering on the square thing over there, and to them that's all there is to it. And of course lower life forms have no awareness of anything human, even if they are physically inside of us. Given that all other species are in this circumstance of being blind to much of reality, why not humans too?

Such higher life forms are proposed to not be supernatural, they comply with the laws of nature just like us. However, they are not limited to the laws of nature as understood by human beings, but the full laws of nature. As example, the laws of physics describe the working of things made of atoms, but most of reality is not made of atoms, but what science is now calling dark matter, dark energy etc, fancy words for "we have no clue what is going on in most of reality".

Such higher life forms would likely seem supernatural to us, just as the Internet would probably seem supernatural to a squirrel, if they had any clue what the Internet or supernatural means.

Religion might be explained as follows...

In every field of endeavor there are people way out at the end of the talent bell curve for that activity. A few rare human beings may have a limited ability to somehow sense the higher life forms.

And then, being human, they will probably try to explain what they have perceived. But there is no language for such things because so few people have had these experiences, so the original experiencer finds themselves in a situation similar to trying to explain color to a blind man. They have to resort to analogies such as "the color red is kind of like a hot burner on the stove" and "the color blue is kind of like a cold glass of water".

People who have never had the experiences begin telling each other the analogies provided by the original experiencer, handing the stories down by word of mouth from person to person. Before long the stories bear little resemblance to the original telling, and the stories are hijacked by power brokers who warp them to serve their own purposes etc. And thus an honest attempt to describe something out at the very edge of human ability gets turned in to a circus.

And then some sensible people come along who find the circus ridiculous, because that's what it often really is. And some of those sensible people have a strong emotional need for literalism and for playing the role of The Great Debunker, and so having little interest in the original experience or the larger reality it may point to, their focus in entirely upon defeating the circus.

Imagine a squirrel trying to explain the Internet to his buddies. No matter how long they discuss the Internet, the limits of their ability condemn their conversations to being eternally silly. A middle way should probably involve the humility that would arise from the understanding that we too are probably in basically that same situation.

[Dclements]

Reply to Dclements:

Thanks for the links.

Your welcome.

-- Updated January 21st, 2017, 1:34 pm to add the following --

I think that most of us that have been following this thread up until now more or less agree that it would be worthwhile for theist and atheist from time to time to try and discuss issues instead of debating/arguing them; also there has been a few that agree that comparative religions (and similar ideas) may not be a bad thing. While there doesn't seem to be to much input from theist (except a few opened minded ones), I'm just glad that the thread hasn't been completely ignored like similar one's I created on another forum.

Anyways, I've noticed a few posts debating things like what part science plays in all of this (or at least I think it was something alone those lines) and I've had discussions about religious/moral axioms and other related issues. I was just thinking that since we are on the topic of discussing issues instead of arguing them (or at least trying to discuss them), it might be worthwhile to talk about issues that relate to trying to find some middle ground (which I will call it from now on in order to avoid posts complaining about 'middle way') and topics that might help in this process. This also includes anything related to topics and issues where atheist disagree with each other, like whether or not human beings can find their way without God; which I believe many theist believe is next to impossible. Other issues might include whether there is anything 'spiritual' or 'supernatural' beyond what we consider the material world. Also I guess we can talk about the topic of Western civilization vs everything else/'the other', although that topic is so big it is unlikely we can do anything but scratch the surface of it in this thread like we have been doing.

The reason I'm asking for this sort of change of topic (although it is still really the same topic) is to avoid people worrying about straying from the initial issue of whether or not theist and atheist can just find some middle ground on some of their issues. Since that issue is kind of small in comparison of trying to find some middle ground on other things (or issues related to finding middle ground) , I thought it might be useful to note that in order to move forward on the issue it is 'ok' just accept that we can discuss matters and in doing so talk about stuff that may be related to finding some middle ground and not just the initial topic of this thread.

[Nick_A]

Could we agree that the emotional attraction to scientific truth is that it is good? A scientist is attracted to science because because scientific knowledge, the knowledge of facts, is good. It satisfies a need to understand how the universe and the world works.

I believe scientists seek to unravel the mysteries of the world as it satisfies an emotional need. I believe the scientific method is good for replication of human organisms. I wouldn't say that scientific truth was 'good' though, that's a bit too open to interpretation for my liking. It would very much depend on how you defined good and I think different people define good differently. For example you give it special religious objective properties which I don't.
Personally when I consider something like existence, it feels literally impossible with our current understanding. If the world is mechanistic how do you get conscious thought. If the world is causal how do you get a first cause? How do quantum effects create macrophysical effects? It's kind of awe inspiring that we can even be awe inspired. How can inspiration even have subjective meaning, how does meaning even come out of physical systems? How is it even possible to think why? in the first place. I could go on and each thing I mentioned has such depth you could write books on each concept (many people have).

But at the end of all this, where I think we can agree on a lot up to this point, this is where we seem to diverge? You offer this incomprehension as proof of God and Love and Good and Source I simply offer it as incomprehension. For me the wonder of life has no less value or wonder for not having a God layer. I think of it as a misrepresentation and I am happy in leaving it undefined with the hope and goal of maybe one day there being comprehension.

So the bottom line for me in terms of what you wrote is that we have many questions that for us go beyond our comprehension. Experiencing awe and wonder in nature is sufficient for you so there is no need for a god layer, a conscious source for creation.

This is understandable and if it satisfies your inner needs I raise a toast to you and wish you the best. As I’ve written before, my concern is for the young whose need for meaning is largely unappreciated and often condemned and ridiculed. That is why the only way this question of middle ground has any value for me is the recognition that both theists and atheists are missing the point and caught up in acquired preconceptions and the imagination it produces.

The great danger of this secular endeavor to find a realistic middle ground between atheism and theism is that it is often satisfying. This middle ground by definition destroys aspiration, How is any young person worth their salt who has the felt the calling to a higher reality supposed to take this idea that we create our own reality so it doesn’t matter what you believe as long as you don’t hurt anyone in the process.

The gifted young are in an unfortunate position. Virtually everything around them in a modern secular serves to destroy eros in them. Where do they go to find people who respect their aspiration? Progressive education cannot understand them. Secularized religion tries to intimidate them the arts are now obsessed with either negativity or obvious feel good unity expressions. They aspire to objectively understand and they are surrounded by ingenious methods to prevent it

That is why when I was younger I was more concerned with these “save the world” ideas. I’ve learned it is futile. The individual has conscious potentials impossible for society or as Plato called the Beast. I’ll leave this middle ground and the ideal creation of a group reality to the group. My concern is to be part of efforts to aid in this “conscious awakening” hidden within the great traditions that can feed the need for meaning felt by the young but often no longer present in the environment around them.

[Belindi]

Nick_A wrote:

Nothing can ever justify the assumption that any man, whoever he may be, has been deprived of this power.
It is a power which is only real in this world in so far as it is exercised. The sole condition for exercising it is consent.

Nick, don't you believe that there are psychopaths, who actually have something wrong with their brains?

[Eduk]

How is any young person worth their salt who has the felt the calling to a higher reality supposed to take this idea that we create our own reality so it doesn’t matter what you believe as long as you don’t hurt anyone in the process.

There are many ways to take things and not all of them are deserved. For me the only goal of secularism is to remove church from state to defend against discrimination. I often feel that people are misguided in many many different ways on many many different things. For the most part this is not a deliberate plot against me though. Personally I find it disappointing and I wish people could do better and sometimes it's deeply worrying and I worry about the future for my children (and everyone's children) but unfortunately I can't fix everything. The best I can do is live true to my beliefs, attempt to explain them to others rationally and if I find myself in a position to exercise power then to do so. I could for example run for local government or school boards or other such things so there is a limit to how much I can complain or deride others.

So the bottom line for me in terms of what you wrote is that we have many questions that for us go beyond our comprehension. Experiencing awe and wonder in nature is sufficient for you so there is no need for a god layer, a conscious source for creation.

I didn't say it was sufficient. Just because you believe some things and I believe other things doesn't mean that I am somehow complacent in my beliefs. It is possible for two people with the same depth of feeling and passion for resolution to come to different conclusions. My own personally trick is that 'I wish I knew the truth' not 'I wish that what I knew was the truth'. These are two radically different ideas.

[Nick_A]

How is any young person worth their salt who has the felt the calling to a higher reality supposed to take this idea that we create our own reality so it doesn’t matter what you believe as long as you don’t hurt anyone in the process.

There are many ways to take things and not all of them are deserved. For me the only goal of secularism is to remove church from state to defend against discrimination. I often feel that people are misguided in many many different ways on many many different things. For the most part this is not a deliberate plot against me though. Personally I find it disappointing and I wish people could do better and sometimes it's deeply worrying and I worry about the future for my children (and everyone's children) but unfortunately I can't fix everything. The best I can do is live true to my beliefs, attempt to explain them to others rationally and if I find myself in a position to exercise power then to do so. I could for example run for local government or school boards or other such things so there is a limit to how much I can complain or deride others.

So the bottom line for me in terms of what you wrote is that we have many questions that for us go beyond our comprehension. Experiencing awe and wonder in nature is sufficient for you so there is no need for a god layer, a conscious source for creation.

I didn't say it was sufficient. Just because you believe some things and I believe other things doesn't mean that I am somehow complacent in my beliefs. It is possible for two people with the same depth of feeling and passion for resolution to come to different conclusions. My own personally trick is that 'I wish I knew the truth' not 'I wish that what I knew was the truth'. These are two radically different ideas.

I read this as your desire to be a good responsible human being. Nothing wrong with that. I would say though that discrimination is a human delight. We will never be rid of it. Secularism just needs to have its own basis for discrimination.

I see I haven’t made myself clear as to what I’m defending. My concern is for the young who are not looking for a middle way between atheism and theism but rather aspire to what Plato referred to as knowledge as opposed to being psychologically trapped in a world of opposing opinions . Who cares for them much less understands them in the modern world that glorifies fragmentation at the expense of wholeness or conscious “knowledge?”

Just so that you will understand what I am referring to, look at the diagram towards the bottom of this link which compares knowledge to opinion

http://people.tamu.edu/~sdaniel/Notes/plato.html

In epistemology, ontology, and source, there is a devolution of knowledge (wholeness) into opinions., In these times when specialization and imagination are glorified at the cost of acquiring a conscious human perspective reflecting knowledge, how is a young person inwardly aware of the inner direction leading to knowledge supposed to stay inwardly alive since the world of glorified opinions is against them? They need a quality of truth the world of opinions struggles against. They have an inner gift the world will do what it can to destroy to protect the status quo.

-- Updated Sun Jan 22, 2017 11:42 am to add the following --

Nick_A wrote:

Nothing can ever justify the assumption that any man, whoever he may be, has been deprived of this power.
It is a power which is only real in this world in so far as it is exercised. The sole condition for exercising it is consent.

Nick, don't you believe that there are psychopaths, who actually have something wrong with their brains?

You took that passage from Simone Weil's essay. Here it is in context

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/questionofgod/voices/weil.html

Those minds whose attention and love are turned towards that reality are the sole intermediary through which good can descend from there and come among men.

Although it is beyond the reach of any human faculties, man has the power of turning his attention and love towards it.

Nothing can ever justify the assumption that any man, whoever he may be, has been deprived of this power.

It is a power which is only real in this world in so far as it is exercised. The sole condition for exercising it is consent.

This act of consent may be expressed, or it may not be, even tacitly; it may not be clearly conscious, although it has really taken place in the soul. Very often it is verbally expressed although it has not in fact taken place. But whether expressed or not, the one condition suffices: that it shall in fact have taken place.

Clearly a brain damaged person is incapable of consent. She is referring to what Plato called the soul's turning to the light Christianity describes as metanoia or a change of inner direction. She wrote that it is wrong to assert that this or that person is incapable of this change of inner direction through the power of conscious attention.

[Belindi]

Nick_A wrote:

Clearly a brain damaged person is incapable of consent. She is referring to what Plato called the soul's turning to the light Christianity describes as metanoia or a change of inner direction. She wrote that it is wrong to assert that this or that person is incapable of this change of inner direction through the power of conscious attention.

"She" refers to Simone Weil.

You answered my question about psychopaths.

I agree that conscious attention can and does change inner direction, if "inner direction" refers to far-reaching change of attitude . It's necessary but not sufficient for attitudes to change ; there are too many attitudes that cause suffering to self and others. So in addition to the paying of conscious attention what is also necessary for a change of attitude are reason, knowledge and, what we have agreed, a brain of which the morality/sympathy part is intact.

[Nick_A]

Nick_A wrote:

Clearly a brain damaged person is incapable of consent. She is referring to what Plato called the soul's turning to the light Christianity describes as metanoia or a change of inner direction. She wrote that it is wrong to assert that this or that person is incapable of this change of inner direction through the power of conscious attention.

"She" refers to Simone Weil.

You answered my question about psychopaths.

I agree that conscious attention can and does change inner direction, if "inner direction" refers to far-reaching change of attitude . It's necessary but not sufficient for attitudes to change ; there are too many attitudes that cause suffering to self and others. So in addition to the paying of conscious attention what is also necessary for a change of attitude are reason, knowledge and, what we have agreed, a brain of which the morality/sympathy part is intact.

I agree that the question of attitude pertaining to a conscious human perspective is an important question. Normally our attitudes are a product of conditioning. What if our attitudes were the result of objective human conscience which recognizes what we all are in relation to the Good? Simone describes this attitude. It seems easy intellctually but in reality the human condition creating an artificial egotism would never allow it. Consequently the change of attitude you write of can only be possible for a minority of individuals who have experienced both objective consciousness and conscience. These people are rare.

"The combination of these two facts — the longing in the depth of the heart for absolute good, and the power, though only latent, of directing attention and love to a reality beyond the world and of receiving good from it — constitutes a link which attaches every man without exception to that other reality.

Whoever recognizes that reality recognizes also that link. Because of it, he holds every human being without any exception as something sacred to which he is bound to show respect.

This is the only possible motive for universal respect towards all human beings. Whatever formulation of belief or disbelief a man may choose to make, if his heart inclines him to feel this respect, then he in fact also recognizes a reality other than this world's reality. Whoever in fact does not feel this respect is alien to that other reality also." ~ Simone Weil

[Dclements]

The great danger of this secular endeavor to find a realistic middle ground between atheism and theism is that it is often satisfying. This middle ground by definition destroys aspiration, How is any young person worth their salt who has the felt the calling to a higher reality supposed to take this idea that we create our own reality so it doesn’t matter what you believe as long as you don’t hurt anyone in the process.

The gifted young are in an unfortunate position. Virtually everything around them in a modern secular serves to destroy eros in them. Where do they go to find people who respect their aspiration? Progressive education cannot understand them. Secularized religion tries to intimidate them the arts are now obsessed with either negativity or obvious feel good unity expressions. They aspire to objectively understand and they are surrounded by ingenious methods to prevent it

That is why when I was younger I was more concerned with these “save the world” ideas. I’ve learned it is futile. The individual has conscious potentials impossible for society or as Plato called the Beast. I’ll leave this middle ground and the ideal creation of a group reality to the group. My concern is to be part of efforts to aid in this “conscious awakening” hidden within the great traditions that can feed the need for meaning felt by the young but often no longer present in the environment around them.

I may be misreading some of your post, but in a nutshell it sounds that part of what you are saying is that when we are young we are feed a lot of ideals but as we grow up we realize that things are more messed up then what adults let us know about and the 'morality' is more alone the lines of hedonism/ruthless pragmatism/ Machiavellianism than anything alone the lines being 'noble' or 'good'. Or at least that is what it is if you don't live protected in a gated community or by some kind of ivory towers.

Years ago when I first started studying philosophy I hoped that I could find some resolution to issues of morality and instead I turned more and more toward skepticism so much so that I'm comfortable with calling myself a nihilist (although other people don't like the term). But I have also learned that it is sort of 'ok' to be a skeptic, nihilist, or sometimes even a crackpot when you study philosophy because the world is a little more dirty and complicated than any of us first envision it as we do when we are children. Several generations ago a lot of people would die from diseases and or wars before they ever reached the age of somewhere around 30 to 40 so it was sort of acceptable that human life was cheap and more or less expendable. However now parents (in many Western societies) spoil their children and let them think they are some kind of special snowflake up until the point where they have to pay for stuff with their blood, sweat and tears like the rest of the adults. Again I may be wrong but I think part of your problem doesn't involve secularism, religions, society, or the ideals we are taught as children; it involves the problems with reality itself. But I luckily might have part of the solution for you. Read the following books (each only take about 1.5-3 hours to read from beginning to end) and they will give you a better grasp on some of the problems in the modern world from a philosophical perspective:

Kierkegaard For Beginners – August 21, 2007
by Donald D. Palmer
Postmodernism For Beginners – August 21, 2007
by Jim Powell
Heidegger For Beginners – August 21, 2007
by Eric Lemay

(And these to if you have the chance:

Philosophy For Beginners Paperback – August 21, 2007
by Richard Osborne
Eastern Philosophy For Beginners – August 21, 2007
by Jim Powell)

I would give out the Amazon links to them but this forum warns me whenever I try to include such stuff in my post. Anyways, just remember that "We do, what we do because that is the way that we do it" (ie. The may not be a real rhyme or reason to what human beings do) and you'll be one step closer to understanding some of the bigger problems all of us have to face in life; such as endlessly pushing a rock up a hill only to watching it slide down again, and again, etc.

[Platos stepchild]

For myself, I don't see any possible middle ground between theism and atheism. Those who want to be judicious and fair minded by accommodating both positions are, I believe playing false. What both theists, and atheists are doing is making mutually exclusive truth-claims. Typically, theists oppose atheism as a godless blasphemy, while atheists decry the theists for their superstitions and naive beliefs in magic talismans. Unfortunately, the bridge reason and faith was burned long ago. Those who claim to span the divide must eventually compromise one or the other. At least, that's what I believe.

[Ormond]

For myself, I don't see any possible middle ground between theism and atheism.

The problem isn't that it doesn't exist, but that it's not wanted. Most people are getting what they want from the division.

[Nick_A]

Dclements, so you are a sceptic and a nihilist. I guess it could be worse; you could be a progressive.. Anyhow, you wrote:

Again I may be wrong but I think part of your problem doesn't involve secularism, religions, society, or the ideals we are taught as children; it involves the problems with reality itself.

Quite true. I believe Plato was right to describe the human condition as if being in a cave attached to shadows on the wall. So if we do live in psychological illusion we cannot know either what we are and be in touch with objective human meaning if it does exist. In that sense I am also a nihilist

We can pretty much verify that the purpose of the man animal is the same as any other animal. Our purpose is to transform substances through our bodily processes. We are part of a living machine called organic life on earth which eats itself and reproduces. It is nature’s way. We feed on life and life feeds on us for the purpose of transforming substances.

Plato defined Man as a being in search of meaning. Is Man limited to the meaningless purpose of the man animal? The essence of religion and some philosophers suggest the potential for conscious humanity that is not limited to mechanical reaction but capable of conscious action. This quality of consciousness receives from a higher conscious level of reality and gives to below on the level of the earth to the Man animal. Man acquires objective meaning through the application of consciousness. I would agree with you then that Man lacks meaning on earth. Meaning and purpose is the same as for all organic life. Objective meaning for man is only possible for conscious humanity.

You recommend Postmodernism. Can you really see me involved with a philosophy which asserts the path to truth comes from a bunch of experts BSing in Plato’s cave and defining truth.

From the Gospel of Thomas:

(3) Jesus said, "If those who lead you say to you, 'See, the kingdom is in the sky,' then the birds of the sky will precede you. If they say to you, 'It is in the sea,' then the fish will precede you. Rather, the kingdom is inside of you, and it is outside of you. When you come to know yourselves, then you will become known, and you will realize that it is you who are the sons of the living father. But if you will not know yourselves, you dwell in poverty and it is you who are that poverty."

A young person who has experienced the vertical quality which connects qualities of consciousness will understand this. The secularist won’t since they are not open to it. They are attached to man made subjective meaning. When a person becomes capable of conscious self knowledge this quality of consciousness can be helped by a higher quality of consciousness. Those not open to this path to meaning will just keep pushing the boulder up the hill and watch it go back down. Shakespeare describes the futility and the destiny for creatures of mechanical REACTION. It may be different for conscious man capable of conscious ACTION as an expression of human meaning.

MACBETH

She should have died hereafter.     
There would have been a time for such a word.
Tomorrow, and tomorrow, and tomorrow,
Creeps in this petty pace from day to day
To the last syllable of recorded time,
And all our yesterdays have lighted fools
The way to dusty death. Out, out, brief candle!
Life’s but a walking shadow, a poor player
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage
And then is heard no more. It is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing.

[Belindi]

Nick_A wrote:

I agree that the question of attitude pertaining to a conscious human perspective is an important question. Normally our attitudes are a product of conditioning. What if our attitudes were the result of objective human conscience which recognizes what we all are in relation to the Good? Simone describes this attitude. It seems easy intellctually but in reality the human condition creating an artificial egotism would never allow it. Consequently the change of attitude you write of can only be possible for a minority of individuals who have experienced both objective consciousness and conscience. These people are rare.

My underline.

It's a 'what if' that I rebut. True, consciences play a large part in forming out attitudes to how and if we relate to the good. (Let's not go along with the tangent of nature or nurture).

Consciences are never objective but are the results of time and place and how men relate to times and places. If usage of 'consciousness' is cognate with attitude and belief then conscience and consciousness are the same. In French it's the same word for both: conscience

.

The "still small voice" is not God's, it's superego's. The only possible direct experience of God is mystical.

I disagree that

the change of attitude you write of can only be possible for a minority of individuals who have experienced both objective consciousness and conscience. These people are rare.

Change of attitude is theoretically available to all except the brain dead. In practice it's difficult for bigoted people to change their attitudes but in all cases, short of mystical experience, what changes attitude is reason and reason alone. It's important to understand that reason very much includes empathy and ordinary human sympathy.

[Eduk]

In practice it's difficult for bigoted people to change their attitudes but in all cases, short of mystical experience, what changes attitude is reason and reason alone.

You may mean something different from me when you say reason but in my opinion reason may define some attitudes but not all. Especially when people step out of their speciality they rely more and more on emotion than reason. And people often step out of their speciality.