Is There Any Purpose and Design Inherent in Life and the Universe?

[Stoppelmann]

Then came Darwin and what was left of the reputation of religion started crumbling down.

Difficult as it may be, I think an adequate view of religion needs to distinguish religion in general from the specific circumstances of Western culture.

The controversy over Origin of Soecies is a symptom of what went wrong with Christianity, the religion of Western culture. I see it as religion fossilising, becoming gradually over time more and more disconnected from culture, an enclave of conservatism, a refuge from modernity.

Seems to me that many in the West find Islamic extremism difficult to comprehend, because we're so used to the diminished and degraded position of religion in our own culture.

The temptation is to think that this is inevitable, an inherent consequence of technological progress and resulting social change. But maybe not - maybe this is a particular development of Western culture, that could have happened differently.

Once again, we must differentiate. The European development was much different to that of the USA, and that of the UK was quite radical. The devastating World Wars of the 20th century had a profound impact on British society. The violence and destruction led to disillusionment with traditional religious institutions and contributed to a decline in religiosity. But in Europe the rise of secular humanism, which emphasizes reason, ethics, and human values without reliance on religious doctrines, and taking a lead from the declaration of human rights, began to shape education and public discourse in a special way.

However, Europe's trajectory toward secularization has deep historical roots. The Enlightenment period in the 17th and 18th centuries, with its emphasis on reason, science, and individual rights, played a significant role in challenging religious authority. The gradual separation of church and state, as well as the decline of state-sponsored religion, contributed to secularization. In addition, many European countries have strong social welfare systems and universal healthcare, which has reduced the dependence on religious institutions for charitable and healthcare services.

The United States, on the other hand, has always been religiously diverse, and religious pluralism has been a defining characteristic of American society. The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution enshrines the principle of religious freedom and the separation of church and state. This legal framework has allowed for a wide range of religious beliefs and practices to coexist. This diversity has contributed to a vibrant religious landscape.

What disturbed this a little were periods of religious revival and "Great Awakenings" in American history that have had a significant impact on religious fervour and the growth of various religious movements. During these waves of religious revivalism, particularly in the 18th and 19th centuries, and again in the mid-20th century with the rise of evangelicalism, it had to some degree a counter-secularizing effect and encouraged fundamentalist beliefs that showed a degree of militancy and extremism that was no longer seen in Europe.

In Europe, the introduction of the historical-critical method of exegesis had a profound effect on biblical scholarship and the interpretation of religious texts, particularly in the realm of biblical studies. This method, which also emerged in the 18th and 19th centuries, parallel to religious revivalism in America, revolutionized the way European scholars approached the Bible and was severely criticised across the Atlantic. In the 1970s, Billy Graham launched a “crusade” to oppose these developments in Europe but was only mildly successful in launching evangelical churches in Europe.

So, we see a distinct difference in the developments in Western culture.

[Count Lucanor]

I'm all for interdisclipinary approaches...with a systematic, rational, sound philosophical and scientific basis. Religion has no place in this, it goes in the opposite direction.

I am often disturbed by the blatant ignorance of history amongst critics of the church, which means that they fail to see the huge differences between life throughout history and the present day.

All my statements regarding religion are concerned with the current role it plays in modern societies, even as I highlight the ancient roots of religion in myth, superstition and ignorance. I have pointed out other times that if there was a good excuse for the persistence of magical thinking before modern times, it’s completely inexcusable in contemporary days. Well-educated people that still want (or need) to endorse stubbornly the ridiculous tales of religion will usually react with resentment to the use of the concept of magical thinking in relation to the modern manifestations of religions. Apparently, they think that these manifestations are more sophisticated than their older versions, but any quick review of the main doctrines still advocated by the main religions, confirms the huge stock of nonsense that they still rely on to indoctrinate their gullible followers, many times resorting to dogmas of faith conceived by church founders and ancient bishops, not exactly illiterate peasants.

I'm not debating Hitchens and I don't see if there's any attempt here to refute my point, which still stands. Orwell? He supported vehemently the bombing of civilians, so that says all for me about his humanism.

George Orwell was not in favour of bombing civilians. In fact, he was a critic of the intentional bombing of civilian populations during wartime. Orwell expressed his views on this matter in various writings, including his essay titled "Pacifism and the War," published in 1942. In this essay, he argued against the indiscriminate bombing of civilian areas and expressed concern about the moral implications of such tactics. Orwell's stance was consistent with his broader commitment to principles of morality, decency, and human rights. He believed that the deliberate targeting of civilian populations in warfare was a violation of these principles.

It is a well-attested fact: a pacifist named Vera Brittain wrote against the indiscriminate bombing of German civilians during WWII. Orwell replied in 1944 with an article in The Tribune titled “As I Please” in which he justifies such actions and mocks Miss Brittain’s “parrot cry”, while endorsing the killing of a “cross section of the population” as preferable to the killing of a selected group (the young soldiers). You can look it up yourself.

I also strongly recommend that you look up and read Orwell’s “Pacifism and The War”, the essay that you are referring to and which you have obviously never read. Orwell is anything but a pacifist in that essay, in fact he declares that pacifism is obviously pro-fascist. He never mentions anything about bombings, BTW.

[Good_Egg]

I have pointed out other times that if there was a good excuse for the persistence of magical thinking before modern times, it’s completely inexcusable in contemporary days.

the mind that is open to poetry is different to the mind that is focussed on scientific detail, and it would be wise if we could combine these perspectives, but we obviously have habitual preferences that deny that possibility.

What a good-for-humanity future requires, to use your terminology, is a combination of scientific methodology in determining how things work with religious wisdom in determining what we do with the technologies thus discovered. With a sound philosophy informing and policing the border.

Religion is by definition anti-science and ideologically biased.

The human ideal that I'm putting forward is, at an individual level, that of a person who is deeply religious in heart and soul but thoroughly scientific in their understanding.

If that's impossible, then why is it impossible ?
@Stoppelman says "habitual preferences". Which seems like an explanation for difficulty within our current culture rather than inherent impossibility.

If it is possible, then pointing to pre-scientific thinking or hostility to science in Christianity in the 19th century (or any other time) is not evidence of religion being inherently bad, but of the religion of Western culture having taken a wrong turn so that it fails to facilitate realisation of that ideal.

[Stoppelmann]

All my statements regarding religion are concerned with the current role it plays in modern societies, even as I highlight the ancient roots of religion in myth, superstition and ignorance. I have pointed out other times that if there was a good excuse for the persistence of magical thinking before modern times, it’s completely inexcusable in contemporary days.

Yes, above all you highlighted “the ancient roots of religion in myth, superstition and ignorance.” Whether you “pointed out other times that if there was a good excuse” to adhere to religious thought I can’t be bothered to look up. But as you pointed out:

Well-educated people that still want (or need) to endorse stubbornly the ridiculous tales of religion will usually react with resentment to the use of the concept of magical thinking in relation to the modern manifestations of religions. Apparently, they think that these manifestations are more sophisticated than their older versions, but any quick review of the main doctrines still advocated by the main religions, confirms the huge stock of nonsense that they still rely on to indoctrinate their gullible followers, many times resorting to dogmas of faith conceived by church founders and ancient bishops, not exactly illiterate peasants.

I wonder why the scriptures of old are still endorsed? Of course, if they are immediately deemed ridiculous and magical thinking, endorsed by gullible followers, then that question isn’t even going to be asked. It is a decidedly narrow-minded perspective that fails to understand that just as scientific language had to be invented as science progressed, ancients having less to base their enquiries on, used the mythological language – which even the early Greek philosophers did. Some pre-Socratic philosophers in ancient Greece sought to explain natural phenomena using abstract principles, such as the concept of the "arche" (the fundamental substance or principle) that underlies all things. Mythologies and the symbolic language of early philosophers served as precursors to scientific inquiry. They represent early human attempts to make sense of the world and to formulate explanations based on observation, even if those explanations were couched in the language of gods and symbolic narratives.

Equally, the moral aspects show a clear development, and a differentiated approach, which is largely overlooked by critics and adherents alike. Reading scripture like literature, there are still many examples that we even find used in modern literature, because they are profound examples of human conflict, both external and internal. I have already shown how the historical-critical approach in Judaism and Christianity has differentiated these aspects since the late 18th and early 19th century. The rise of fundamentalism in America was largely a reaction against this.

It is a well-attested fact: a pacifist named Vera Brittain wrote against the indiscriminate bombing of German civilians during WWII. Orwell replied in 1944 with an article in The Tribune titled “As I Please” in which he justifies such actions and mocks Miss Brittain’s “parrot cry”, while endorsing the killing of a “cross section of the population” as preferable to the killing of a selected group (the young soldiers). You can look it up yourself.

Once again, you can’t just read the headlines. Orwell wrote in reaction to Miss Britain:

“Now, no one in his senses regards bombing, or any other operation of war, with anything but disgust. On the other hand, no decent person cares tuppence for the opinion of posterity. And there is something very distasteful in accepting war as an instrument and at the same time wanting to dodge responsibility for its more obviously barbarous features.”

He obviously is attacking the hypocrisy of wanting a war but not wanting certain aspects of it. He points out that Miss Brittain was not taking the pacifist standpoint. “She is willing and anxious to win the war, apparently. She merely wishes us to stick to ‘legitimate’ methods of war and abandon civilian bombing, which she fears will blacken our reputation in the eyes of posterity.”

This is a point that I raised with Christians in Germany that wanted to be conscientious objectors, and I virtually quoted Orwell, “Pacifism is a tenable position; provided that you are willing to take the consequences.” In WWII the consequence would have been a Nazi Europe including Britain. His disgust at the losses of war finds no limits, “Unlike Miss Brittain, I don’t regret that. I can’t feel that war is ‘humanized’ by being confined to the slaughter of the young and becomes ‘barbarous’ when the old get killed as well.” This is probably because he had seen young men die in terrible ways, and had no illusions of the atrocities going on, but they are not limited to what happens to a civilian population.

[Count Lucanor]

The human ideal that I'm putting forward is, at an individual level, that of a person who is deeply religious in heart and soul but thoroughly scientific in their understanding.

If that's impossible, then why is it impossible ?
@Stoppelman says "habitual preferences". Which seems like an explanation for difficulty within our current culture rather than inherent impossibility.

If it is possible, then pointing to pre-scientific thinking or hostility to science in Christianity in the 19th century (or any other time) is not evidence of religion being inherently bad, but of the religion of Western culture having taken a wrong turn so that it fails to facilitate realisation of that ideal.

From a rigorous philosophical and scientific standpoint, what exactly is "deeply religious" and what do you mean by "heart and soul"? And what would you make of the human ideal of a non-religious person (in "heart and soul") and thoroughly scientific in their understanding? I presume that's what you point at when talking about the "wrong turn of Western culture", am I right?

[Count Lucanor]

I wonder why the scriptures of old are still endorsed? Of course, if they are immediately deemed ridiculous and magical thinking, endorsed by gullible followers, then that question isn’t even going to be asked. It is a decidedly narrow-minded perspective that fails to understand that just as scientific language had to be invented as science progressed, ancients having less to base their enquiries on, used the mythological language – which even the early Greek philosophers did. Some pre-Socratic philosophers in ancient Greece sought to explain natural phenomena using abstract principles, such as the concept of the "arche" (the fundamental substance or principle) that underlies all things. Mythologies and the symbolic language of early philosophers served as precursors to scientific inquiry. They represent early human attempts to make sense of the world and to formulate explanations based on observation, even if those explanations were couched in the language of gods and symbolic narratives.

It's obvious you can't help it. Every time arguments are made against the contemporary role of religion, you will resort to the defense of ancient religion, actually avoiding the issue. The ancients believed stuff that made sense to them, considering the state of knowledge, so we can excuse them only for that reason. While that is acknowledged, we move on and see of what use it's for us TODAY all those ancient myths and legends, which can only look infantile for our modern age. The answer is: if they are to be taken seriously, then they clearly have a negative effect on society. We need society to be mature, not infantile.

Equally, the moral aspects show a clear development, and a differentiated approach, which is largely overlooked by critics and adherents alike. Reading scripture like literature, there are still many examples that we even find used in modern literature, because they are profound examples of human conflict, both external and internal. I have already shown how the historical-critical approach in Judaism and Christianity has differentiated these aspects since the late 18th and early 19th century. The rise of fundamentalism in America was largely a reaction against this.

I could find examples of human conflict and moral reflections in Shakespeare or Don Quixote. No need to look at religious literature from ancient tribes in the Middle East.

It is a well-attested fact: a pacifist named Vera Brittain wrote against the indiscriminate bombing of German civilians during WWII. Orwell replied in 1944 with an article in The Tribune titled “As I Please” in which he justifies such actions and mocks Miss Brittain’s “parrot cry”, while endorsing the killing of a “cross section of the population” as preferable to the killing of a selected group (the young soldiers). You can look it up yourself.

Once again, you can’t just read the headlines. Orwell wrote in reaction to Miss Britain:

“Now, no one in his senses regards bombing, or any other operation of war, with anything but disgust. On the other hand, no decent person cares tuppence for the opinion of posterity. And there is something very distasteful in accepting war as an instrument and at the same time wanting to dodge responsibility for its more obviously barbarous features.”

He obviously is attacking the hypocrisy of wanting a war but not wanting certain aspects of it. He points out that Miss Brittain was not taking the pacifist standpoint. “She is willing and anxious to win the war, apparently. She merely wishes us to stick to ‘legitimate’ methods of war and abandon civilian bombing, which she fears will blacken our reputation in the eyes of posterity.”

Surely, his point is "we are already in a horrible war, that we must win, and we have to accept the bombing of civilians if that's what it takes. As horrible as it may be, it's morally justifiable for the practical outcome (to win the war)". Not quite a pacifist, not quite a person that "was not in favor of bombing civilians", not quite a "commitment to principles of morality, decency, and human rights", as you argued.

[Stoppelmann]

It's obvious you can't help it. Every time arguments are made against the contemporary role of religion, you will resort to the defense of ancient religion, actually avoiding the issue. The ancients believed stuff that made sense to them, considering the state of knowledge, so we can excuse them only for that reason. While that is acknowledged, we move on and see of what use it's for us TODAY all those ancient myths and legends, which can only look infantile for our modern age. The answer is: if they are to be taken seriously, then they clearly have a negative effect on society. We need society to be mature, not infantile.

And you can’t help but always insult anyone who still values the ancient scriptures, even if they know that they are made up of mythologies, legends, histories, poetry, and fable. Even if they employ a method that takes the critical aspects out in their exegesis, you have to call them infantile for finding purpose and design inherent in life and the universe. The men and women of lower educational levels, especially in Europe that continue to go to church, obviously find solace in liturgy, song and ritual, in holy places, but you have nothing but distain for them. It is the sheer contempt that you among others display that is offensive and hinders a mutual respect and cooperation between the traditions and disciplines.

I could find examples of human conflict and moral reflections in Shakespeare or Don Quixote. No need to look at religious literature from ancient tribes in the Middle East.

Many people do look at other literature, I have a large, illustrated copy of Don Quixote, as well as a collection of novels, essays and journalism of Orwell. I have numerous literary sources, just as many Christians do, and I acknowledge for example, that JRR Tolkien wrote in a letter saying that he considered Lord of Rings a work of Catholicism, but not as an allegory, or displayed up front, but interwoven in the story. I respect the authors that, although they are Christians, respect the writings of Rumi, the Tao te Ching, the Upanishads, or like Hermann Hesse write a story in which he reworks the story of Buddha in a very spiritual way. Respect is the word that has been lacking in your attack on religion.

Surely, his point is "we are already in a horrible war, that we must win, and we have to accept the bombing of civilians if that's what it takes. As horrible as it may be, it's morally justifiable for the practical outcome (to win the war)". Not quite a pacifist, not quite a person that "was not in favor of bombing civilians", not quite a "commitment to principles of morality, decency, and human rights", as you argued.

I don’t know whether you have done active service or confronted the raw aggression that is rampant in war, but if you had, you might tearfully accept that the human spirit is able to self-destruct in many ways, and despair at the fact, but accept that sometimes, there is no other way to stop the atrocities other than armed conflict. It may be that it goes wrong, achieves the opposite to what you mean to achieve, but passivity in such situations brings consequences that could be far worse. This dilemma was alive in George Orwell, and you can criticise his actions, but you have to respect his intentions.

[Good_Egg]

From a rigorous philosophical and scientific standpoint, what exactly is "deeply religious" and what do you mean by "heart and soul"? And what would you make of the human ideal of a non-religious person (in "heart and soul") and thoroughly scientific in their understanding? I presume that's what you point at when talking about the "wrong turn of Western culture", am I right?

A more rigorous view of religion is something we can hope to get to from discussions like these. Not claiming to have all the answers...

It seems to me that the word "religion" and its derivatives are used in two different senses. A religion is a (certain type of) body of ideas and a community that professes those ideas and tries to live by them. And religion is an approach to life, the process of living in relation to such ideas.

Thinking about what a non-religious person is, there is the person who is attached to no spiritual tradition, but who has something in their life that they do religiously - take with utmost seriousness, almost "live for". Their health, perhaps. Or their hobby. Or progressive politics. (As examples only).

And there is the person who is irreligious about everything. Who holds nothing sacred. Who will mock anything for a cheap laugh and abandon anything for momentary gratification. A person with no ties. That's the ideal of a psychopath.

Science is a way of understanding the universe. A way that involves having no ties to preconceptions, but openness to evidence. And that's fine and good as an ideal of a basis for understanding, for how we conceive of the physics and biology of the universe in which we find ourselves. The error ("scientism"?) is in trying to make a religion of it.

I'm suggesting that a scientific understanding is compatible with a life lived within a tradition of spiritual wisdom. Or a life that is religious about something mundane. Or a life that is irreligious.

Theists and atheists alike can agree that the sun rises in the east because of the way the earth rotates, rather than for any mystical reason. Religion in general is not about rejecting a scientific understanding.

Apologies - I'm being a bit vague ("a certain type of") because I count Buddhism as a religion, and don't want to define religion too narrowly (e.g. as being about gods) in a way that would exclude it.

[Sculptor1]

It is a difficult question and probably one people ask especially in difficult times and each person answers subjectively and differently at various times. Some see no purpose whatsoever and some the complete opposite, with an underlying
divine purpose.

I am inclined against black and white answers but see some kind of order and design, possibly as some weak anthropic principle. Of course, purpose and design are related but not identical. A design may suggest a clear cohesive plan which would bring up ideas of predestination as opposed to a more emergent evolutionary perspective. It may be about potential as possibilities.

Since you did not address my question, I'll ask it again.

In what way, or by what means, would such ideas actually "inhere"?
Surely "purpose" can only be subjective? How could a complex concept be inherent?
Sounds like just the sort of question people always asked but seldom critically ask what it would mean for such a question to be askable or viable.

[Count Lucanor]

And you can’t help but always insult anyone who still values the ancient scriptures, even if they know that they are made up of mythologies, legends, histories, poetry, and fable. Even if they employ a method that takes the critical aspects out in their exegesis, you have to call them infantile for finding purpose and design inherent in life and the universe. The men and women of lower educational levels, especially in Europe that continue to go to church, obviously find solace in liturgy, song and ritual, in holy places, but you have nothing but distain for them. It is the sheer contempt that you among others display that is offensive and hinders a mutual respect and cooperation between the traditions and disciplines.

Here you are just playing the fallacious card of accusing me of treating people with disdain when I only treat with the disdain the ideas they, as well as you, subscribe to. It is perfectly acceptable to criticize ideas, even if it amounts to disrespect them, as sacred as you might think they are, just because they are heartfelt beliefs and some people need to hold on to them tightly. The opposite is exactly what blasphemy laws are for, to shut down dissent against inherited beliefs, but I cannot entertain such nonsense.

I could find examples of human conflict and moral reflections in Shakespeare or Don Quixote. No need to look at religious literature from ancient tribes in the Middle East.

Many people do look at other literature, I have a large, illustrated copy of Don Quixote, as well as a collection of novels, essays and journalism of Orwell. I have numerous literary sources, just as many Christians do, and I acknowledge for example, that JRR Tolkien wrote in a letter saying that he considered Lord of Rings a work of Catholicism, but not as an allegory, or displayed up front, but interwoven in the story. I respect the authors that, although they are Christians, respect the writings of Rumi, the Tao te Ching, the Upanishads, or like Hermann Hesse write a story in which he reworks the story of Buddha in a very spiritual way. Respect is the word that has been lacking in your attack on religion.

I have absolutely no problem with literary fiction that is nowadays acknowledged as fiction, even if it was taken as literal truth in remote times. I like Hesse and many others. I love sacred music and works of art inspired by religious narratives, just because of their beauty, including their aim for the sublime. I do have a problem with literary fiction involving magical events performed by supernatural beings, that is proclaimed as historical fact and used to indoctrinate, proselytize and pontificate, imposing the moral laws devised by such preachers, not only to their followers, but to non-believers as well. My respect for religious ideas ends there.

Surely, his point is "we are already in a horrible war, that we must win, and we have to accept the bombing of civilians if that's what it takes. As horrible as it may be, it's morally justifiable for the practical outcome (to win the war)". Not quite a pacifist, not quite a person that "was not in favor of bombing civilians", not quite a "commitment to principles of morality, decency, and human rights", as you argued.

I don’t know whether you have done active service or confronted the raw aggression that is rampant in war, but if you had, you might tearfully accept that the human spirit is able to self-destruct in many ways, and despair at the fact, but accept that sometimes, there is no other way to stop the atrocities other than armed conflict. It may be that it goes wrong, achieves the opposite to what you mean to achieve, but passivity in such situations brings consequences that could be far worse. This dilemma was alive in George Orwell, and you can criticise his actions, but you have to respect his intentions.

Since you lost your case, that is, the case of claiming Orwell opposed the shelling of civilians and supported pacifist causes, in an essay he never wrote saying what you claim, you have found no other option but to simply endorse Orwell’s views, which are exactly the views I had said he endorsed. It really does not help your case at all.

[Count Lucanor]

From a rigorous philosophical and scientific standpoint, what exactly is "deeply religious" and what do you mean by "heart and soul"? And what would you make of the human ideal of a non-religious person (in "heart and soul") and thoroughly scientific in their understanding? I presume that's what you point at when talking about the "wrong turn of Western culture", am I right?

It seems to me that the word "religion" and its derivatives are used in two different senses. A religion is a (certain type of) body of ideas and a community that professes those ideas and tries to live by them. And religion is an approach to life, the process of living in relation to such ideas.

That is an ambiguous, not a rigorous definition. A “certain type”? You don't care to identify what type of ideas those are, which is at the center of the question. So you end up giving a definition of religion that could work as well for a charity or a political or cultural movement, ignoring the centuries-old experiences with thousands of religions, unanimously promoting “certain type” of ideas about a supernatural, immaterial world, an afterlife realm, populated by agents with magical superpowers. That’s real religion in a nutshell, but a fairly good description of the most common attributes of religion is found in The Encyclopedia of Philosophy:

“- Belief in supernatural beings (gods).
- A distinction between sacred and profane objects.
- Ritual acts focused on sacred objects.
- A moral code believed to be sanctioned by the gods.
- Characteristically religious feelings (awe, sense of mystery, sense of guilt, adoration),which tend to be aroused in the presence of sacred objects and during the practice of ritual, and which are connected in idea with the gods.
- Prayer and other forms of communication with gods.
- A world view, or a general picture of the world as a whole and the place of the individual therein. This picture contains some specification of an over-all purpose or point of the world and an indication of how the individual fits into it.
- A more or less total organization of one’s life based on the world view.
- A social group bound together by the above.”

Of course, having only one or some of these attributes does not make a religion, but the more you find the closer to describing a true religion.

Thinking about what a non-religious person is, there is the person who is attached to no spiritual tradition, but who has something in their life that they do religiously - take with utmost seriousness, almost "live for". Their health, perhaps. Or their hobby. Or progressive politics. (As examples only).

I just refuted this claim above. A hobby might be an accessory ingredient of religiosity, but not both a sufficient and necessary condition of it. Also, you throw in there the word “spiritual” without any hint of what exactly it’s meant by it. Spiritual could be “intellectual” or related to inner reflection and improvement of one’s mental, physical and emotional life, but it could also be associated in religion to immaterial substances, beings and forces dwelling in another purported non-physical dimension. One could have a “spiritual” life embracing the former, without subscribing to the latter.

And there is the person who is irreligious about everything. Who holds nothing sacred. Who will mock anything for a cheap laugh and abandon anything for momentary gratification. A person with no ties. That's the ideal of a psychopath.

One is irreligious about religion (see definition above). Period.

Science is a way of understanding the universe. A way that involves having no ties to preconceptions, but openness to evidence. And that's fine and good as an ideal of a basis for understanding, for how we conceive of the physics and biology of the universe in which we find ourselves. The error ("scientism"?) is in trying to make a religion of it.

I can’t disagree with that.

I'm suggesting that a scientific understanding is compatible with a life lived within a tradition of spiritual wisdom. Or a life that is religious about something mundane. Or a life that is irreligious.

I disagree, given the definition of religion above.

Theists and atheists alike can agree that the sun rises in the east because of the way the earth rotates, rather than for any mystical reason. Religion in general is not about rejecting a scientific understanding.

I must also disagree there. As long as it can accommodate its dogmatic beliefs into our general understanding of the world (science included) religion will show a happy smile. As soon as core beliefs are challenged by science, religion shows its menacing claw and teeth.

Apologies - I'm being a bit vague ("a certain type of") because I count Buddhism as a religion, and don't want to define religion too narrowly (e.g. as being about gods) in a way that would exclude it.

You look up there the typical attributes of religion and tell me if it’s not. I understand there are certain Buddhist stances that are little concerned with supernatural forces and some claim there’s a hint of atheism there, I can’t tell. In any case, it would be the exception, not the rule.

[Stoppelmann]

It is perfectly acceptable to criticize ideas, even if it amounts to disrespect them, as sacred as you might think they are, just because they are heartfelt beliefs and some people need to hold on to them tightly. The opposite is exactly what blasphemy laws are for, to shut down dissent against inherited beliefs, but I cannot entertain such nonsense.

I'll just quote Iain McGilchrist here because I'm not at my computer:

"It may seem odd to cite the mediaeval mystic Meister Eckhart in support of an association between what we now know to be the right hemisphere and the approach to the divine; but, like James and Bergson so many centuries later, he seems to have intuited a distinction between two modes of understanding, one of which is more skilful here than the other. Consider these quotes from Eckhart in the light of what we have learnt:
The active intellect [LH] … cannot entertain two images together, it has first one and then the other. [But] … if God prompts you to a good deed … whatever good you can do takes shape and presents itself to you together in a flash [RH], concentrated in a single point.

Here he could be seen as contrasting the serial concatenations of the left hemisphere with the immediate intuitive Gestalt formation more characteristic of the right. Then he says: ‘When the intellect discerns true being it descends on it, comes to rest on it, pronouncing its intellectual word about the object it has seized on [LH].’

But, says Eckhart, it can never do what it longs to do, namely to say ‘this is this, it is such and not otherwise’. It carries on in ‘questioning and expectation; it does not settle down or rest, but labours on, seeking, expecting and rejecting … Thus there is no way man can know what God is. But one thing he does know: what God is not. And this a man of intellect will reject.’

Eckhart seems to be telling us that the left hemisphere is unhappy until it can put words to experience and say with certainty what it is. While it can never succeed in this, it might have acquired an understanding by apophasis; but it can’t understand that, and rejects the apophatic path. Another passage bears comparison:

Intellect peeps in and ransacks every corner of the Godhead, and seizes on the Son in the Father’s heart and in the ground, and sets him in its own ground. Intellect forces its way in, dissatisfied with wisdom or goodness or truth or God Himself. In very truth, it is as little satisfied with God as with a stone or a tree. It never rests ...

The ‘intellect’ (aka the left hemisphere here) is intrusive, overbearing, disrespectful, appropriative, insatiable, relentlessly striving and wilfully going about its business. And note the suggestions of curiosity rather than wonder: it peeps in, ransacks, seizes, forces its way in, is never satisfied, never resting … it treats the divine according to its own conceptions (‘sets him in its own ground’), and as a thing alongside other things, something commensurate with a stone or a tree. When it does see God, it doesn’t recognise the fact, but goes on with its rampaging.

It is not surprising that Eckhart tried to image the opposite of this as undoing, unknowing, unsaying, darkness, emptiness and silence – something like the ‘fertile night’ that Chargaff referred to. (It is only at dusk that the owl of Minerva spreads her wings.) Notice that the leaders of the Enlightenment called themselves ‘les lumières’, and the leaders of the attack on religion judge themselves to be the ‘Brights’: as Chargaff pointed out, the brighter the light, the less you see; and as Suzuki noted, ‘this “don’t know” is what we call “dark”, and it is very important’.) We switch out the light in order to see the stars.
Iain McGilchrist, The Matter With Things. (P.1876)

This seems to describe your approach.

[Count Lucanor]

It is perfectly acceptable to criticize ideas, even if it amounts to disrespect them, as sacred as you might think they are, just because they are heartfelt beliefs and some people need to hold on to them tightly. The opposite is exactly what blasphemy laws are for, to shut down dissent against inherited beliefs, but I cannot entertain such nonsense.

I'll just quote Iain McGilchrist here because I'm not at my computer:

"It may seem odd to cite the mediaeval mystic Meister Eckhart in support of an association between what we now know to be the right hemisphere and the approach to the divine; but, like James and Bergson so many centuries later, he seems to have intuited a distinction between two modes of understanding, one of which is more skilful here than the other. Consider these quotes from Eckhart in the light of what we have learnt:
The active intellect [LH] … cannot entertain two images together, it has first one and then the other. [But] … if God prompts you to a good deed … whatever good you can do takes shape and presents itself to you together in a flash [RH], concentrated in a single point.

Here he could be seen as contrasting the serial concatenations of the left hemisphere with the immediate intuitive Gestalt formation more characteristic of the right. Then he says: ‘When the intellect discerns true being it descends on it, comes to rest on it, pronouncing its intellectual word about the object it has seized on [LH].’

But, says Eckhart, it can never do what it longs to do, namely to say ‘this is this, it is such and not otherwise’. It carries on in ‘questioning and expectation; it does not settle down or rest, but labours on, seeking, expecting and rejecting … Thus there is no way man can know what God is. But one thing he does know: what God is not. And this a man of intellect will reject.’

Eckhart seems to be telling us that the left hemisphere is unhappy until it can put words to experience and say with certainty what it is. While it can never succeed in this, it might have acquired an understanding by apophasis; but it can’t understand that, and rejects the apophatic path. Another passage bears comparison:

Intellect peeps in and ransacks every corner of the Godhead, and seizes on the Son in the Father’s heart and in the ground, and sets him in its own ground. Intellect forces its way in, dissatisfied with wisdom or goodness or truth or God Himself. In very truth, it is as little satisfied with God as with a stone or a tree. It never rests ...

The ‘intellect’ (aka the left hemisphere here) is intrusive, overbearing, disrespectful, appropriative, insatiable, relentlessly striving and wilfully going about its business. And note the suggestions of curiosity rather than wonder: it peeps in, ransacks, seizes, forces its way in, is never satisfied, never resting … it treats the divine according to its own conceptions (‘sets him in its own ground’), and as a thing alongside other things, something commensurate with a stone or a tree. When it does see God, it doesn’t recognise the fact, but goes on with its rampaging.

It is not surprising that Eckhart tried to image the opposite of this as undoing, unknowing, unsaying, darkness, emptiness and silence – something like the ‘fertile night’ that Chargaff referred to. (It is only at dusk that the owl of Minerva spreads her wings.) Notice that the leaders of the Enlightenment called themselves ‘les lumières’, and the leaders of the attack on religion judge themselves to be the ‘Brights’: as Chargaff pointed out, the brighter the light, the less you see; and as Suzuki noted, ‘this “don’t know” is what we call “dark”, and it is very important’.) We switch out the light in order to see the stars.
Iain McGilchrist, The Matter With Things. (P.1876)

This seems to describe your approach.

Actually, what is not properly used, trained and nurtured, becomes handicapped or obsolete. The purported mastery of the right brain over the left one, its supposedly holistic approach, is what we find to be most deficient in the religious mind, left unattended while being entertained with wild fantasies, unable to find the necessary complement in the left hemisphere. Letting the imagination running wild, the religious mind cannot focus and dismisses the important details as noise, making our dealings with the world a pure matter of narratives. It’s all the same postmodernist junk, the same litany against the inductive methods or science, materialism, secularism and objective truths, showing its true conservative face. No, thanks.

[Sy Borg]

It’s all the same postmodernist junk, the same litany against the inductive methods or science, materialism, secularism and objective truths, showing its true conservative face. No, thanks.

Postmodernism and anti-science ideas are not only found in conservatives, but also New Agers. For instance, I doubt that conservatives were responsible for homeopathy etc.

Both the far left and the far right have too much influence for society's own good. IMO we'd be better off with pragmatic centrists in charge.

[Count Lucanor]

It’s all the same postmodernist junk, the same litany against the inductive methods or science, materialism, secularism and objective truths, showing its true conservative face. No, thanks.

Postmodernism and anti-science ideas are not only found in conservatives, but also New Agers. For instance, I doubt that conservatives were responsible for homeopathy etc.

Both the far left and the far right have too much influence for society's own good. IMO we'd be better off with pragmatic centrists in charge.

It's a long story, but I tend to catalogue the New Age movement among conservative views, perhaps a moderate one, but one that fits very well to middle class yuppies. In general, I see the New Leftists as the new conservatives, no less sanctimonious than their far-right counterparts. A better term would be reactionary, but I don't find a clear distinction between the two: if you are a conservative, you are a reactionary, and vice versa. Some people have pointed out the New Age aesthetic of some of the insurrectionists at the US Capitol.