I find believers are unwilling to admit that the emotional root of their belief in God (whatever other rationalisations they may have) is their fear of death. I also find many atheists unwilling to admit what on the face of it seems self evident: that it would be desirable to most people if what we value most and our experience of these goods were not terminated by death.
But then why should the truth be comforting? Why should the universe fit in with our wishful thinking? I am a non-theist who would, emotionally, like to be ‘saved’ from death and the finite nature of existence – but I’m also rationally convinced there are no supernatural saviours except in the theist’s imagination.

Does this mean that defining God isn’t important after all? Or by saying “GOD IS” do you mean to define God as what exists? If that’s the case, then I would say you are a pantheist. (Which, interestingly, is not much different from my sort of atheism.)

Re-reading, I think you are a pantheist (or panentheist?). Am I right? You write, “I need nothing outside myself to BE. That I Am is sufficient for me to know. I need nothing outside myself to fear – there IS nothing to fear, and my Self is not my form.” To the extent I think I understand this, I would call it pantheism.

And I would agree. “My Self is not my form” I interpret as meaning that the scientific (and non-scientific) knowledge we have of ourselves—the descriptions we have of our bodies (which you are calling “form”)—do not and cannot capture our actual nature. If that’s what you mean, then I agree. We do not have a “knowable” nature, in that sense. And it is ok.

If I understand you correctly, our viewpoints are not far apart. I use different language (as I see it, this is a rejection of “the principle of sufficient reason” which has dominated Western thought since Plato at least), and maybe I am approaching things from the opposite angle. What do you think?

I’ve just begun reading these entries.

My first note: Define God.

(The root source of so much current conflict, I feel, is due to lack of agreement on this.)

Some say God is ‘out there’ – the white-bearded old man on the throne. Others have Her wrapped in lovely chiffons, with multiple arms, ruling over only certain aspects of ‘life’. Then the tribal Gods mask up; the Gael / ancient Draoi ‘evolve’ into gods —> Tuatha de Danaan; the entire pantheon of Greek/Roman Gods BCE; gods of nature/Gods of dreams/gods of Egypt/Gods of galactic discourse between be-ings more advanced than ‘humans’……..

and on and on it goes……

Define God.

GOD IS.

That’s all I need to know.

Mind Is.
Am I mind or am I form?

Am I anything, really?

Consider quantum physics, quantum mechanics. Consider ONE instant in time, wherein all time IS, were it not-so named, because by naming it anything, we reduce it to a concept, which leads us into judgment, which derives from ego, which is informed by what?

I have in the past 7 years or so come to know that every single choice I make of this/that, here/there, now/then, blue/white, banana/nuts, will determine a certain outcome. Only I am responsible for this outcome, since the ‘choice’ was only in my mind, thus I perceive (key word that) whatever I’ve trained myself to believe through many moments of choice making. Is any of it meaningful? Do I want it to be meaningful? Why not? It is only meaningful because I have deemed it so, in that moment. These collections of moments which seem to accrue, these choices based on whatever my mind selects at some seeming moment become my life.

My life is not ruled or controled by anything outside me – me being my mind’s sense of its current form – UNLESS I so choose that. I do not choose that, thus hold myself accountable for every choice.

What if I make a mistake?

(I see a ‘mistake’ as anything that causes myself – my ego – pain, or suffering, or anyone else the same.) Do I want that? No. I make choices that will avoid pain and suffering – for myself and others. ‘God’ doesn’t cause suffering and pain – we do. With every choice that leads to these ‘mistakes’. God is the easy target for blame because the Egyptians/Greeks/Gaels/tribes/Jews/Christians/Muslims etc continue the ‘separation’, the duality, the mental breakaway from their true essence, their ‘nature’ if you would. Their
innocence.

I need nothing outside myself to BE. That I Am is sufficient for me to know. I need nothing outside myself to fear – there IS nothing to fear, and my Self is not my form. My form may think it is itself, but my mind determines whether or not I align with Self or self. I choose.

My form isn’t what matters with regard to ‘God’. (no matter the name) Divine Energy/Radiant One/Yahweh and more… my form’s need to be guarded and protected is the base reason I might imagine I need a God (or at least to blame or battle your God) that my form might survive. When I move away from duality and the world of form, will I still have my MIND?! That is whatI have spent 40 years searching to answer.

And I now know.

But my answer, and your answer may not be not the same.

And here is my deepest philosophy, how I respond to many moments as a form:

Is that so?

But – and here is where my life takes on its brilliant relief – I have absolutely no concern whatsoever with either having an answer or with what the answer IS.

Second,
The Christians in Sweden do use the Bible, but remember that we are a Protestant country (well, at least those 15% that are Christian). That is moderate Christianity. They still believe in a personal God and believe that he (she?) intervenes in our lives. They will often interpret the Bible metaforically, and sometimes they are in fact right – as with the incorrect translation mentioned above. That´s what critical thinking leads to; more precise and justified claims.
You see, Christianity is a name that today cover a lot of branches and sects. Here are some examples:

Roman Catholicism
Greek-Ortodox Catholicisim
Russian-Orthodox Catholicism
Lutheran Protestantism
Calvinistic Protestantism
Puritanism
Jehova´s Wittnesses
Mormonism

…and many, many more.
It seems that it´s only in America that some people don´t consider these as different parts of Christianity. You may do so, but be careful to acknowledge that this is your view and yours only. In Europe, and in many other areas of the world, we don´t do this distinction between these belief systems. We say it is all branches of Christianity.
One also have to remember that Christianity origianlly is a branch, in itself, from Judaism. That´s why you keep the Torah (Old Testament).

Third;
So if you hold the Bible as the ultimate authority, then you also think we should run out to stone homosexuals and blasphemers? I don´t think so. If you don´t either, then why do you think we have changed out minds since the time when this was written?
Why do you think that just some 150 years ago it was perfectly acceptable to keep slaves in America? Why did we justify racism in both Europe and America until the 1960´s?
The answer is: The change of the moral Zeitgeist.
I am utterly convinced that some of the things we consider ok today, will be terrible morals for the people of the 22nd century. It has been like that for all history – why would it suddenly stop?

So my new question is one that I have already mentioned:
If you believe the Bible to be the ultimate authority – the words inspired by God – do you therefore consider stoning of the people mentioned above to be motivated by the Bible? If not, you have demonstrated that you get your moral from somewhere else. (Unless the Bible contradict itself, and in that case it is a terrible source which is not to be relied upon)

Oh, and a second, more philosophical question I use to ask religious people:
Many religious people say that God is omnipotent – all powerful.
Could God then create a stone, which is so heavy that he cannot lift it? If he can´t, then he is not omnipotent. If he can – then he cannot lift it and is not omnipotent anyway.

Cheers!

My stand on that, is that you should always be able to back up your arguments with very good rational arguments. If two adults have sex before marriage, who do they harm? They follow my priniciple explained in my previous post – be as happy as possible by any means without inflicting on any other person´s way to be happy. And since they both agree on their actions, and the actions don´t affect any other, they are free to do so. In the case with the abortion, I think it has to be the woman´s choice whether she wants to abort the embryo or not. It is plausible that the unwanted child wouldn´t have such a great upbringing since s/he will always be reminded that s/he is the result of a terrible crime. So if the woman decides to abort the embryo, that´s her perfect right. (Besides, since the fetus hasn´t developed a nervous system or a complete brain at this stage, it can not possibly feel or be aware of anything at all.)

So, my final say will be this:
1) You could do whatever you want unless you inflict on other´s right to do whatever they want.
2) You may have a different set of morals unless you inflict on other´s right to have their set of morals.
3) You should always base your moral decisions on reasonalbe, rational and well-thought grounds.

If you base your decisions on religion, for instance, you are not being rational. Religion is a matter of faith, and faith is an idea about the world that is not based on evidence or facts (otherwise it wouldn´t be faith). If it says in the Bible that it is immoral to do ‘X’ – what does that mean? Who wrote the Bible, and when, and under what circumstances? Why is that immoral? Because God says it is? If you follow the Bible strictly, you would have to stone to death homosexuals, people who commit adultery, people who curse God (=swearing! Quite a busy time stoning people…) etc. All this is in the Old Testament. No sane Western person would do that, right? Therefore it is clear that you can´t base your moral decisions on religion, or for that matter, any set of belief that is not critisised and questioned first. (The Nazi officers in Auschwitz said during the Nürnberg trials in 1945 that they were “only following orders from their generals”. Since then soldiers are obliged to think for them selves, if they get an order wich sounds stupid, they have to question it.) That is the reason I don´t like religion (or Nazism, or Communism etc.) – it teaches you not to question your beliefs. That´s why, for example, science is different: If scientists didn´t question their results, we would still believe that the Earth is flat and that diseases is best cured by blood-letting! We should always examine our way of thinking and decide whether we´re on the right path or if we maybe have to change something. I question my atheism all the time (but I have never found an argument to believe in any supernatural). But neverhteless, I have the courage to admit when and if I am wrong.

In conclusion, you must base your decisions on critical thinking and by questioning your arguments.

Perhaps I expanded the topic a little, but I thought i had to in order to give my point of view. I also have a question for you, but it´s not a bout morality: Do you think that one could accept, say, Big Bang and Darwinian evolution while still being religious? Maybe you could say that Big Bang was the way God created things?
The reason I ask is because most Christians and Muslims in Sweden believe so, but in the States it seems that there´s this “fight” going on between religious people and scientists/science teachers. How come? Why not be compatibilists?

Love,
Olle

From your previos post, you asserted that there is an innate moral standard that has been formed in us at the beginning of time and has grown and matured along with mankind to adapt to the circumstances of the time. The standard you first described (tribes in central africa example) seemed to be a ‘survival of the fittest’ type outlook; we live to live. My question is, in your oppinion, can different people be allowed to have different moral standards? And, if so, what happens if their moralities are conflicting?