Why should we give up our beliefs?

[Shaker]

According to Buddhism, hope is a poisoned purse. To continually live in hope is to make inadequate the present, and given that the present is the only thing we can be certain of, that's a half life. By definition life cannot get any better than the present moment, because the present moment is the only life we have.

A different route to the same conclusion: I was just thinking of three very different thinkers - Sartre, Camus and Russell - who individually said that life must be, can only be lived without hope or appeal.

[BashfulAnthony]

According to Buddhism, hope is a poisoned purse. To continually live in hope is to make inadequate the present, and given that the present is the only thing we can be certain of, that's a half life. By definition life cannot get any better than the present moment, because the present moment is the only life we have.

As a theist of kinds I've seen just enough for me to allow for the possibility of an afterlife. So I live in the hope of one, you could say. But I try to live as though there isn't, because otherwise I'm missing the miracle of me, now.

It is perfectly feasible to live a fulfilled and meaningful life, and have hope as well.  Why not?  You need't be obsessed with thoughts of what is, or isn't to come.  The two things are complementary.

[Rhiannon]

Because hope makes the present not good enough. If it turns out that the present is all we have, then our whole lives become not good enough.

[BashfulAnthony]

Because hope makes the present not good enough. If it turns out that the present is all we have, then our whole lives become not good enough.

How cynical! Hope does nothing of the sort:  it is an incentive to make the best of life, in the hope of more to come.

[Shaker]

Just found on Wikipedia (on the page for 'Absurdism'):

The rejection of hope, in absurdism, denotes the refusal to believe in anything more than what this absurd life provides. Hope, Camus emphasizes, however, has nothing to do with despair (meaning that the two terms are not opposites). One can still live fully while rejecting hope, and, in fact, can only do so without hope. Hope is perceived by the absurdist as another fraudulent method of evading the Absurd, and by not having hope, one is motivated to live every fleeting moment to the fullest. In the words of Nikos Kazantzakis' epitaph: "I hope for nothing. I fear nothing. I am free."

[BashfulAnthony]

Just found on Wikipedia (on the page for 'Absurdism'):

The rejection of hope, in absurdism, denotes the refusal to believe in anything more than what this absurd life provides. Hope, Camus emphasizes, however, has nothing to do with despair (meaning that the two terms are not opposites). One can still live fully while rejecting hope, and, in fact, can only do so without hope. Hope is perceived by the absurdist as another fraudulent method of evading the Absurd, and by not having hope, one is motivated to live every fleeting moment to the fullest. In the words of Nikos Kazantzakis' epitaph: "I hope for nothing. I fear nothing. I am free."*

t.

Well , he was a twit!    And a lost one, to boot!

 

[Shaker]

Ah yes, the standard retort of the ignorant.

Sad.

[BashfulAnthony]

Ah yes, the standard retort of the ignorant.

Sad.

And your retort is the standard one from someone who you cannot think of an adequate comment.

[ekim]

Beliefs, religion, or experiences/spirituality?

If we have a secular society, why should it be desirable for us all to be atheist? Why do people look forward to a utopian ideal of universal non-belief?

Some comments.  There are a number of ways of looking at 'belief'.  One is as an assessment of probability based upon factual information, which the scientific method engages with to get as close to the 'truth' as possible.  A second is based upon thought control or indoctrination over a period of time, where the believer is conditioned to believe without question.  The truth or otherwise of this belief is often difficult for the individual to assess as he is often bound to it by emotions like desire and fear.  A third is perhaps more personal to the individual and revolves around the belief in a method, path or way to sustain the wellbeing of that individual.  The truth or otherwise of the method can be tested by the individual through following that method, which is often towards an inner 'state' of being.  If I recall correctly, the 'lief' part of belief meant 'love'.  So, perhaps, 'be-love' is the inner state to aspire to so that notions of secular v religion and theism v atheism become redundant.

[Leonard James]

Just found on Wikipedia (on the page for 'Absurdism'):

The rejection of hope, in absurdism, denotes the refusal to believe in anything more than what this absurd life provides. Hope, Camus emphasizes, however, has nothing to do with despair (meaning that the two terms are not opposites). One can still live fully while rejecting hope, and, in fact, can only do so without hope. Hope is perceived by the absurdist as another fraudulent method of evading the Absurd, and by not having hope, one is motivated to live every fleeting moment to the fullest. In the words of Nikos Kazantzakis' epitaph: "I hope for nothing. I fear nothing. I am free."*

t.

Well , he was a twit!    And a lost one, to boot!

And you're not, of course! 

[jakswan]

If we ever do get a genuinely secular society though, I don't get why some atheists then have the desire for the 'mystical' to be replaced by 'reason'. Maybe some people like the mystical?

That depends on the context surely, we can't run a society based on mystical feelings, we have to reach a consensus. Example: Lets ban equal marriage because god told me it was wrong, I'm not suggesting all the augments against equal marriage were of that nature but some were.

If a Christian is against equal marriage and chooses not to marry someone of the same sex because of mystical reasons then as a liberal I think they should be free to marry who they want.

It becomes an issue when theists tell others who they can or can not marry based on mystical/religious reasons.

In public discourse 'reason' rather than 'mystical' is the only game in town, unless you pick one religion and become a theocracy.

[Shaker]

Smashing post jakswan.

A few years ago Richard Holloway - that's former Bishop Richard Holloway - wrote a book called Godless Morality in which he argued that when discussing any moral matters religious belief had to be set aside if you ever hope to reach agreement. You can't hope to persuade an atheist that your version of 'God says yes' or 'God says no' has any traction whatsoever; every party around the table has to start and end with principles that they can all agree to, otherwise there's no point having a discussion at all.

[wigginhall]

According to Buddhism, hope is a poisoned purse. To continually live in hope is to make inadequate the present, and given that the present is the only thing we can be certain of, that's a half life. By definition life cannot get any better than the present moment, because the present moment is the only life we have.

As a theist of kinds I've seen just enough for me to allow for the possibility of an afterlife. So I live in the hope of one, you could say. But I try to live as though there isn't, because otherwise I'm missing the miracle of me, now.

You're on a roll.  I worked with a Zen teacher for a while, who used to warn of crushed illusions, if you followed the meditation technique seriously.  But as you say, the disillusionment also brought a vivid sense of this moment.  It's also something that is always available, and feels complete, and even perfect.  It does mean letting go of tons of stuff, but I think we do that anyway, as we get older.

[SusanDoris]

And I'm wondering why that is a good thing, to eradicate the mystical from the world.

Eta my opening sentence should read 'if we were to have a secular society...' I know we don't have one at the moment.

Religious views will never be totally eradicated, but will, slowly but surely, become understood as not fact.  The dividing line between fact and fiction/superstition/etc will become much clearer and the truth, as Alan Burns has as his sig line, will set us free!!

[Rhiannon]

Smashing post jakswan.

A few years ago Richard Holloway - that's former Bishop Richard Holloway - wrote a book called Godless Morality in which he argued that when discussing any moral matters religious belief had to be set aside if you ever hope to reach agreement. You can't hope to persuade an atheist that your version of 'God says yes' or 'God says no' has any traction whatsoever; every party around the table has to start and end with principles that they can all agree to, otherwise there's no point having a discussion at all.

You won't find any pagan disagreeing with that. I don't think I've ever read or heard anything from any pagan saying 'God wants' or 'God thinks'. There's not much consensus in paganism but if it does exist it is in agreeing we are all personally responsible and accountable for our own morality.

But I still come back to questioning why, given that we will/would have a secular society in which religion has no say in matters such as marriage equality, it would still be seen as desirable by some atheists that we all lose our personal sense of the mystical.

[Rhiannon]

According to Buddhism, hope is a poisoned purse. To continually live in hope is to make inadequate the present, and given that the present is the only thing we can be certain of, that's a half life. By definition life cannot get any better than the present moment, because the present moment is the only life we have.

As a theist of kinds I've seen just enough for me to allow for the possibility of an afterlife. So I live in the hope of one, you could say. But I try to live as though there isn't, because otherwise I'm missing the miracle of me, now.

You're on a roll.  I worked with a Zen teacher for a while, who used to warn of crushed illusions, if you followed the meditation technique seriously.  But as you say, the disillusionment also brought a vivid sense of this moment.  It's also something that is always available, and feels complete, and even perfect.  It does mean letting go of tons of stuff, but I think we do that anyway, as we get older.

I don't know if I'm on a roll, I just know that I had no choice but to get here. I'm a million miles from enlightenment, but I'm here, in the shit, and it is fine as it is.

[wigginhall]

 O wise bodhisattva, you and the shit are one!

[Rhiannon]

Tell me about it! 

[Shaker]

I always said Rhi was the shit. In the good sense, of course

[Hope]

HOPE msg 3 "pol pot and stalin etc" trundled out again, its so bloody annoying. Almost as annoying as "if you dont believe in something, youll believe in anything" tosh.

No more annoying than others implying (pretty heavily) that violence and other such problems are the preserve of theists and theist beliefs.  As for "if you don't believe in something, you'll believe in anything", I'm sorry if this sums up your thinking.  It has never crossed my mnd.

[Hope]

A few years ago Richard Holloway - that's former Bishop Richard Holloway - wrote a book called Godless Morality in which he argued that when discussing any moral matters religious belief had to be set aside if you ever hope to reach agreement. You can't hope to persuade an atheist that your version of 'God says yes' or 'God says no' has any traction whatsoever; every party around the table has to start and end with principles that they can all agree to, otherwise there's no point having a discussion at all.

And he was rightly panned by a number of sectors of society for suggesting that anyone should have to set aside their raison d'etres in this way. 

I would also disagree with him on the very suggestion that this has to happen.  I have had plenty of very useful and constructive discussions about matters 'moral' with people who don't have any religious belief.  Sadly, it has rarely happened here.

[Rhiannon]

Because there is nothing 'moral' about opposing marriage equality.

[Shaker]

And he was rightly panned by a number of sectors of society for suggesting that anyone should have to set aside their raison d'etres in this way. 

I would also disagree with him on the very suggestion that this has to happen.  I have had plenty of very useful and constructive discussions about matters 'moral' with people who don't have any religious belief.  Sadly, it has rarely happened here.

It clearly has to happen his way, since there's no other. When people try to argue, as some people have/did, that you should be prevented from reading The Satanic Verses or forbidden to marry your same-sex partner because their version of a god is butthurt about it, then they have no rational case to put forward and must be ignored. Preferably with an accompanying high degree of derision.

[Hope]

It clearly has to happen his way, since there's no other. When people try to argue, as some people have/did, that you should be prevented from reading The Satanic Verses or forbidden to marry your same-sex partner because their version of a god is butthurt about it, then they have no rational case to put forward and must be ignored. Preferably with an accompanying high degree of derision.

Oddly enough, the "accompanying high degree of derision" is usually only one way, even when those doing the deriding are no less able of producing a rational argument for their pov.  It has happened on ths board countless times, with the likes of yourself asserting X, Y, and Z when there is neither a more rational or logical reason for that pov than anything else.  It is often as if folk like yourself have a new God, and it is what others of us call science.

[Shaker]

Only theists have gods - that's what defines them as theists. The rest of us, in the reality-based community I mean, simply call science, science.