Hi, really appreciate this. Your writing and your movement are highly admirable and timely.
When asked, I describe myself as a post-Christian non-theist. Non-theist, because atheism connotes a stridency I neither feel nor approve.
I would like to assure you and your readership, several of whom I am accustomed to read with pleasure, that lacking a personified god in no way hampers a life of reverence and gratitude, or a strong feeling of fellowship with those who adhere to traditional creeds. Whether the universe was spoken into being or not, existence is a miracle, and deserving of our awe and devotion.
I find much to admire in animism, especially its attitude toward the thousand thousand symbioses that create and sustain all living things. To deny what is numinous in human life is to make what is animal cheap, shabby, and mean; I am in heartfelt agreement with Jeff and with animism on that.
Saw an Ayn Rand quote this AM... "You can avoid reality, but you can't avoid the consequences of avoiding reality".
The postmodern denial of the meta-narrative is coming back to bite the deniers in the fanny.
Humans are positioned (the child-like ones stay this way) to see the phenomenological aspects of life, and think that those phenomena/stories represent all of life, with no thought given to any principles behind the details of whatever phenomenon/story is being experienced.
But behind each little story is a larger story. Myriad descriptions of the larger stories exist, (sadly) most popular among them... agnosticism, atheism, evolutionism, existentialism, nihilism, etc, etc, etc, and they all have a common thread. Do they not?
They all deny the meta-narrative as noted in our founding documents; as observed by the adults in the room who've not gotten stuck in perpetual adolescence.
O for the societally wholesale guts to shout it from rooftops.
O for the illumination necessary that it be heard.
Hmm...hope I don't sound too nihilistic...
Many "leaders" become such by promoting their sometimes Utopian, sometimes Dystopian, sometimes Idealist, sometimes Populist 30,000 foot view.
They usually don't see the 100,000 foot view, much less the heavenly view: the meta-narrative.
They, the self-proclaimed adults in the room, are nothing of the sort; are they?
Thanks for weighing in, Peter. Much appreciated, as always. No, there are precious few adults left in the room. Most of us have jettisoned any aspirations to freedom through sheer attrition and fear the past few years. Largely because we have been taught to fear everyone and everything. Such is the essential lesson of commercial media, and a great reason to tune it out.
not trying to elevate by beliefs above any others, but include in my reference to the founding documents, not merely the meta-narrative of Creator/creation dynamic, but just as importantly in my opinion, the "self evident".
I think Peter was referring to the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution as the foundational documents -- although, as always, I could be mistaken.
Fortunately, most religious belief doesn't rely on reason to the extent it satisfies just enough of what may be missing elsewhere in our lives to justify faith in the absence of things seen. Unadulterated earning, like years of psychotherapy, may be a bridge too far for most of us, and an impediment to the many benefits of faith -- even and especially absent any corresponding reason -- that might otherwise accrue in good times and bad.
Faith, like hard work, is its own reward at times.
Thanks, reante. Of course, faith sometimes confuses or impedes reason, just as reason sometimes confuses and impedes faith. They travel together as flip sides of the same coin for a reason: neither should travel alone. Separate and unabated by the other, they are doomed by our flaws to failure and apocalypse. Together they offer at least some semblance of hope -- the oft-orphaned stepchild of both. To consider the pros and cons of either without considering the pros and cons of both can lead only to half-truths at best.
Reason can be fine-tuned and optimized. But so can faith. The essence of that optimization process resides in adjusting the admixture of the two, not in their separation. Optimizing one at the exclusion of the other is a recipe for disaster, much as technology-driven secularization now threatens to destroy Western civilization. The difference in the optimization process is that one side of the coin is always rushing into the void while the other side of the coin is infinitely patient -- more recently to its own demise.
The forces of reason are justifiably anxious. The forces of faith take a longer view, equally justified. 21st-century nihilism is a perfectly reasonable response to the institutional destruction of faith. Arguing for the primacy of reason as an alternative to theocracy is one thing. But arguing for the primacy of reason in a society where faith is on life support is unreasonable.
Thank you for restacking my essay.
Thanks, Peter. Excellent loose-end tying!
Hi, really appreciate this. Your writing and your movement are highly admirable and timely.
When asked, I describe myself as a post-Christian non-theist. Non-theist, because atheism connotes a stridency I neither feel nor approve.
I would like to assure you and your readership, several of whom I am accustomed to read with pleasure, that lacking a personified god in no way hampers a life of reverence and gratitude, or a strong feeling of fellowship with those who adhere to traditional creeds. Whether the universe was spoken into being or not, existence is a miracle, and deserving of our awe and devotion.
Thank you for the lovely and most compassionate comment, Alan.
Thanks!
I find much to admire in animism, especially its attitude toward the thousand thousand symbioses that create and sustain all living things. To deny what is numinous in human life is to make what is animal cheap, shabby, and mean; I am in heartfelt agreement with Jeff and with animism on that.
And just to tie up the loose ends, (I.N.H.O.) freedom requires courage, true courage requires faith, and fear is the absence of faith.
Saw an Ayn Rand quote this AM... "You can avoid reality, but you can't avoid the consequences of avoiding reality".
The postmodern denial of the meta-narrative is coming back to bite the deniers in the fanny.
Humans are positioned (the child-like ones stay this way) to see the phenomenological aspects of life, and think that those phenomena/stories represent all of life, with no thought given to any principles behind the details of whatever phenomenon/story is being experienced.
But behind each little story is a larger story. Myriad descriptions of the larger stories exist, (sadly) most popular among them... agnosticism, atheism, evolutionism, existentialism, nihilism, etc, etc, etc, and they all have a common thread. Do they not?
They all deny the meta-narrative as noted in our founding documents; as observed by the adults in the room who've not gotten stuck in perpetual adolescence.
O for the societally wholesale guts to shout it from rooftops.
O for the illumination necessary that it be heard.
Hmm...hope I don't sound too nihilistic...
Many "leaders" become such by promoting their sometimes Utopian, sometimes Dystopian, sometimes Idealist, sometimes Populist 30,000 foot view.
They usually don't see the 100,000 foot view, much less the heavenly view: the meta-narrative.
They, the self-proclaimed adults in the room, are nothing of the sort; are they?
Thanks for weighing in, Peter. Much appreciated, as always. No, there are precious few adults left in the room. Most of us have jettisoned any aspirations to freedom through sheer attrition and fear the past few years. Largely because we have been taught to fear everyone and everything. Such is the essential lesson of commercial media, and a great reason to tune it out.
Thanks Reante.
not trying to elevate by beliefs above any others, but include in my reference to the founding documents, not merely the meta-narrative of Creator/creation dynamic, but just as importantly in my opinion, the "self evident".
best... pjh
PS
what does the ftfy stand for?
I think Peter was referring to the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution as the foundational documents -- although, as always, I could be mistaken.
Fortunately, most religious belief doesn't rely on reason to the extent it satisfies just enough of what may be missing elsewhere in our lives to justify faith in the absence of things seen. Unadulterated earning, like years of psychotherapy, may be a bridge too far for most of us, and an impediment to the many benefits of faith -- even and especially absent any corresponding reason -- that might otherwise accrue in good times and bad.
Faith, like hard work, is its own reward at times.
the US' founding document, the declaration and constitution are those to which I was referring.
They reference the Creator, Nature's God, and things about the creation that are self-evident in their estimation/observation... and in mine.
Sorry for stirring controversy. I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything, merely musing, thinking and commenting.
best... pjh
Thanks, reante. Of course, faith sometimes confuses or impedes reason, just as reason sometimes confuses and impedes faith. They travel together as flip sides of the same coin for a reason: neither should travel alone. Separate and unabated by the other, they are doomed by our flaws to failure and apocalypse. Together they offer at least some semblance of hope -- the oft-orphaned stepchild of both. To consider the pros and cons of either without considering the pros and cons of both can lead only to half-truths at best.
Reason can be fine-tuned and optimized. But so can faith. The essence of that optimization process resides in adjusting the admixture of the two, not in their separation. Optimizing one at the exclusion of the other is a recipe for disaster, much as technology-driven secularization now threatens to destroy Western civilization. The difference in the optimization process is that one side of the coin is always rushing into the void while the other side of the coin is infinitely patient -- more recently to its own demise.
The forces of reason are justifiably anxious. The forces of faith take a longer view, equally justified. 21st-century nihilism is a perfectly reasonable response to the institutional destruction of faith. Arguing for the primacy of reason as an alternative to theocracy is one thing. But arguing for the primacy of reason in a society where faith is on life support is unreasonable.
the US' founding document, the declaration and constitution are those to which I was referring.
They reference the Creator, Nature's God, and things about the creation that are self-evident in their estimation/observation... and in mine.
Sorry for stirring controversy. I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything, merely musing, thinking and commenting.
best... pjh
My pleasure, J.R. Thanks for reading my work.