Do We Need To Be "Rethinking Heaven"?

[Penumbra]

Can't read the article, it's behind a subscription wall.

Maybe someone could summarize the main crux? From what I gather it's about the aspects of religion that preach that heaven is a state of mind rather than a location?

If the notion of heaven is somehow derived from the bliss commonly associated with some sorts of mystical experiences, then it would be counter-productive to desire heaven, since desiring a mystical experience tends to inhibit one's having one.

Some of the more popular present-day people that have apparently had mystic experiences do seem to have had them out of the blue. Jaggi Vasudev and Eckharte Tolle being two examples I can think of off the top of my head.

If someone believes because he's gunning for the big payoff (as Pascal's Wager makes plain), then he should admit that. And that's not morality, that's just conditioned behavior.

-Nato

I'm not sure I'd say Pascal's Wager makes that plain.

-The dude pretty much founded probability theory in his spare time.
-The wager of his was published after his death from some of his materials, and is usually not presented in the words he used in those materials, or even a direct translation of them. These were his notes, not his published assertion to the world.
-Pascal personally claimed to have had a vivid religious near-death experience, and separates his god from "the god of the philosophers". (deism was popular in his age).

 

[Muffled]

TIME Magazine seems to think so.

The basic problem I see is that simply giving an ancient superstition a New Age makeover doesn't make the concept of Heaven any more meaningful or internally coherent. It simply whitewashes the ethical dilemma of believing in a reward or punishment (even if it's not after you die) for your behavior. A lot of nonbelievers say that's a big problem with religion that's rarely addressed: if religious people are motivated by the prospect of reward, then they're just as materialistic as anyone motivated by greed or lust.

Belief in what's right should be its own reward. Shouldn't it?

-Nato

This premise is wrong so the conclusions are bound to be wrong also.

I don't see any ethical dilemma.

This is based on the presumption that the reward is material. That is not the case.

Acting right is its own reward. Belief in what's right only earns brownie points that can be rewarded. Even the devil believes in what is right. He just doesn't want to do what is right. Shouldn't all those non-christians working hard at their religion get an "A" for effort?

 

[Muffled]

Sorry, I read it at the doctor's office.


Sure we are. But morality isn't about reward and reinforcement. If someone believes because he's gunning for the big payoff (as Pascal's Wager makes plain), then he should admit that. And that's not morality, that's just conditioned behavior.

-Nato

If someone steals, the punishment could be jail. However most criminals believe they won't get caught and will have much gain even though the reality is that the person has been caught and put in jail several times.

A person believing that stealing is wrong has no other reward than a clean conscience whcih is nice now but even better in the afterlife.

I agree that the latter is better but I also can see where the punishment is necessary for some people.

 

[Muffled]

It seems to me possible that the notion of heaven is ultimately derived from the feelings of bliss often associated with certain kinds of mystical experiences, and from the notion that such feelings of bliss could be made to endure so that one lived in a state of constant bliss.

It seems possible the notion of heaven is derived from that, but there's no way of telling whether it actually is derived from that.

Your notion is derived. God doesn't have notions He provides information.

 

[George-ananda]

TIME Magazine seems to think so.

The basic problem I see is that simply giving an ancient superstition a New Age makeover doesn't make the concept of Heaven any more meaningful or internally coherent.

As you start by referring to heaven as an 'ancient superstition' we are starting from different assumptions.

I believe the traditional understanding of heaven is in great need of a modern makeover. This so-called 'New Age' is a catch-all term for a great number of things (good and bad). The best parts of the New Age is not new at all and goes back thousands of years to the ancient sages of the East who I believe have things to teach the West. The West was more extroverted and advanced technologically. The East was more introverted and attained greater spiritual insight. We should each learn from each other.

It simply whitewashes the ethical dilemma of believing in a reward or punishment (even if it's not after you die) for your behavior. A lot of nonbelievers say that's a big problem with religion that's rarely addressed: if religious people are motivated by the prospect of reward, then they're just as materialistic as anyone motivated by greed or lust.

Belief in what's right should be its own reward. Shouldn't it?

-Nato

As for your next point of heaven being a reward/punishment thing shows right there why our traditional understanding needs a makeover. It should be viewed more as a spiritual growth place where the soul continues to evolve. Spiritual growth (like intellectual growth in this life) are inherently good things to strive for.

 

[sojourner]

TIME Magazine seems to think so.

The basic problem I see is that simply giving an ancient superstition a New Age makeover doesn't make the concept of Heaven any more meaningful or internally coherent. It simply whitewashes the ethical dilemma of believing in a reward or punishment (even if it's not after you die) for your behavior. A lot of nonbelievers say that's a big problem with religion that's rarely addressed: if religious people are motivated by the prospect of reward, then they're just as materialistic as anyone motivated by greed or lust.

Belief in what's right should be its own reward. Shouldn't it?

-Nato

A common misconception about heaven is that it's a reward. It's not a reward.

 

[Penumbra]

Your notion is derived. God doesn't have notions He provides information.

Or your notion is derived, and people potentially just provide information that they claim comes from various gods.

 

[Thief]

A common misconception about heaven is that it's a reward. It's not a reward.

Here we agree.

I would say, if you are allowed to enter it's because you belong there.

 

[Straw Dog]

Can only state that *THINKING* in itself is what keeps individuals from heaven or that garden of eden.
One needs to still the mind [thoughts] to realize IT.
Thinking never has/never is/never will help to understand what *heaven/hell* means.
Religions all over directly or indirectly wants every individual to realize IT.

Love & rgds

Agreed.

Would only add that perhaps it's not "thinking" in and of itself that prevents realization of peace, but rather uptight thinking. That is to say when thoughts become like shackles around mind. The same can be said about emotions. Thinking is natural, but it needs to be free and playful with awareness that every thought collapses back into the emptiness of the real. Familiarity of that emptiness does require stilling the mind though, of course.

Take it easy.

 

[Quagmire]

Friend E.ND,



Can only state that *THINKING* in itself is what keeps individuals from heaven or that garden of eden.

You could say that the thinking mind is ". . .the flaming sword which turned every direction to guard the way to the tree of life." (Genesis 3:24) :yes: