Pantheism and Deism - Richard Dawkins' comment

[Kirran]

I am a gnostic atheist and epistemological monist. I don't do god basically. Why would I need much of an understanding of the possibilities of theistic concepts? They don't get the pots washed or put bread on the table. They are unnecessary to explain reality or anything else. Reality renders most, if not all, of them wildly improbable and downright silly. Cognition error, neuroscience and psychology satifactorily explain the phenomona.

They don't wash the pots, and they aren't necessary. Agreed. But so what?

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Pantheism is not sexed-up atheism. Consciousness and agency are not things you can ascribe to rocks;

As an animist, I disagree. But I'm an idealist monist (not Advaita, because my school is different), so my views are the flipside of yours.

 

[Kirran]

I'm, I guess, a materialist or absolute Advaita monist. So I can see how you'd say I was a sexed-up atheist.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

I'm, I guess, a materialist or absolute Advaita monist. So I can see how you'd say I was a sexed-up atheist.

How does materialism mesh with Advaita?

 

[Kirran]

How does materialism mesh with Advaita?

Doesn't really, it's my own attempting to explain my understanding of it through Western classifications. I'm not a materialist or an idealist, to be honest, I think the separation between the two is arbitrary, and it's all maya in any case. There's just one, the one is neither material nor ...ideal?

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Doesn't really, it's my own attempting to explain my understanding of it through Western classifications. I'm not a materialist or an idealist, to be honest, I think the separation between the two is arbitrary, and it's all maya in any case. There's just one, the one is neither material nor ...ideal?

Idealism in idealistic monism is saying that the one substance of reality is "mental", i.e. it's consciousness. There is no such thing as the "material" since all stems from consciousness.

 

[Kirran]

Idealism in idealistic monism is saying that the one substance of reality is "mental", i.e. it's consciousness. There is no such thing as the "material" since all stems from consciousness.

So I am neither. I don't think there's any such thing as the material or the mental

What school of Hindu philosophy are you, Frank?

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

So I am neither. I don't think there's any such thing as the material or the mental

What school of Hindu philosophy are you, Frank?

Then what do you think exists?

I'm not sure if it's aligned with any particular school. I'm a Shakta and getting into LHP Tantra. My views are much the same as is found in Kaula Tantra. There is no duality between "real" and "unreal" in Kaula Tantra. All things are real and maya is viewed as the idea that we're separate from God, when we're not.

 

[Kirran]

Then what do you think exists?

Just being. Just That. Just Brahman. Everything else reduces to that.

I'm not sure if it's aligned with any particular school. I'm a Shakta and getting into LHP Tantra. My views are much the same as is found in Kaula Tantra. There is no duality between "real" and "unreal" in Kaula Tantra. All things are real and maya is viewed as the idea that we're separate from God, when we're not.

Fascinating stuff, Tantra does make a lot of sense to me as a path, and there's so much subtlety all these terms, I also use maya in such a way.

What do you think of these rituals of drinking alcohol from skulls and meditating on corpses and drinking the blood of newly-sacrificed animals? I can absolutely see how they're a spiritual path, personally. Cutting off bonds.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Just being. Just That. Just Brahman. Everything else reduces to that.



Fascinating stuff, Tantra does make a lot of sense to me as a path, and there's so much subtlety all these terms, I also use maya in such a way.

What do you think of these rituals of drinking alcohol from skulls and meditating on corpses and drinking the blood of newly-sacrificed animals? I can absolutely see how they're a spiritual path, personally. Cutting off bonds.

I have no problem with it. I'm a Death-worshiper, myself, so those rituals appeal to me. I drink alcohol, smoke and I eat meat, including beef. The thinking is that it's not what you do, it's your mentality that makes you "pure" or "impure". So those rituals are liberating in that they break down cultural notions of dualistic concepts of "pure" and "impure".

 

[Kirran]

I have no problem with it. I'm a Death-worshiper, myself, so those rituals appeal to me. I drink alcohol, smoke and I eat meat, including beef. The thinking is that it's not what you do, it's your mentality that makes you "pure" or "impure". So those rituals are liberating in that they break down cultural notions of dualistic concepts of "pure" and "impure".

Yeah I think so too on the breaking things down, help you really look at things. And of course pure and impure are just our ideas, nothing intrinsic.

While it's not the path I plan to follow myself, I still think it can be very useful to cultivate a little madness

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Yeah I think so too on the breaking things down, help you really look at things. And of course pure and impure are just our ideas, nothing intrinsic.

While it's not the path I plan to follow myself, I still think it can be very useful to cultivate a little madness

Yup. It's not for everyone, that's for sure. But there's a lot of misinformation and misunderstanding about it. It's important for me because I have a lot of anxiety over death so it's good for me to work on it.

 

[Deadtroopers]

Hmm. Frank, Kirran; I don't appear to have any common ground or language for this. Consciousness is an emergent property of increasing neural complexity. Chimps might have consciousness; dogs less probably, too simple a brain. Worms have no brain so it's out entirely. Rocks are not even alive. Maya? Reality is an illusion? If folk want to think they are figments of the imagination, I won't disabuse them but neither will I pay them any attention. Why should I? On their own admission they don't exist. That we are not seperate from god I can go with. God is most probably a cognition error but if not god as another emergent property bound up with being human is a possibility. Drinking from skulls, contemplating corpses. WHAT? But then I remember I happily went along with cannibalising the corpse of a god and blood drinking for half a dozen years every Sunday.

 

[Kirran]

Hmm. Frank, Kirran; I don't appear to have any common ground or language for this. Consciousness is an emergent property of increasing neural complexity. Chimps might have consciousness; dogs less probably, too simple a brain. Worms have no brain so it's out entirely. Rocks are not even alive. Maya? Reality is an illusion? If folk want to think they are figments of the imagination, I won't disabuse them but neither will I pay them any attention. Why should I? On their own admission they don't exist. That we are not seperate from god I can go with. God is most probably a cognition error but if not god as another emergent property bound up with being human is a possibility. Drinking from skulls, contemplating corpses. WHAT? But then I remember I happily went along with cannibalising the corpse of a god and blood drinking for half a dozen years every Sunday.

As a scientific-minded individual, how accurate do you think the human senses are at conveying anything? Does red exist? Do separate objects?

 

[Kirran]

Yup. It's not for everyone, that's for sure. But there's a lot of misinformation and misunderstanding about it. It's important for me because I have a lot of anxiety over death so it's good for me to work on it.

For me, my anxiety over death is stoked up by my belief in the possibility of anti-ageing treatments coming in which could have me live indefinitely.

Do you believe in reincarnation (in a literal sense)?

 

[Deadtroopers]

As a scientific-minded individual, how accurate do you think the human senses are at conveying anything? Does red exist? Do separate objects?

Very good. If they weren't we would not be here. All the creatures with poor senses were selected out epochs ago. The light frequency red exists. What we see as red is our interpretation. At the macro level seperate objects exist. I am not the chair I sit on neither do I segue into it.

We all agree this. You get out of bed, you go out, you cross roads, you routinely use sharp objects. You demonstrate you trust your senses to the nth degree every waking moment,

 

[Kirran]

Very good. If they weren't we would not be here. All the creatures with poor senses were selected out epochs ago. The light frequency red exists. What we see as red is our interpretation. At the macro level seperate objects exist. I am not the chair I sit on neither do I segue into it.

Raises a good point 'if they weren't we would not be here'. The senses haven't been selected for to be accurate. They've been selected for to boost survival.

I think the distinction between myself and the floor I'm sitting on is utterly arbitrary, as is the distinction between wavelengths of light, between light and this bag of lentils, etc.

 

[Deadtroopers]

Raises a good point 'if they weren't we would not be here'. The senses haven't been selected for to be accurate. They've been selected for to boost survival.

I think the distinction between myself and the floor I'm sitting on is utterly arbitrary, as is the distinction between wavelengths of light, between light and this bag of lentils, etc.

But if they were not accurate they would not boost survival. You would be eaten by something with more accurate senses. Reality is not arbitrary it is mathematically explainable. Ironically for this conversation, Hindu mathematicians discovered a lot of the maths that makes this possible a long time before Leibnitz and Newton.

 

[Kirran]

But if they were not accurate they would not boost survival. You would be eaten by something with more accurate senses. Reality is not arbitrary it is mathematically explainable. Ironically for this conversation, Hindu mathematicians discovered a lot of the maths that makes this possible a long time before Leibnitz and Newton.

I guess we're operating on different ideas of accuracy. It's been said a lot, in science, that all humans really perceive is their own nervous system, nothing more.

I don't see how it's ironic, to be honest, I think maths is perfectly well and good.

Incidentally, do you know of any Hindu temples out in Stockport?

 

[Deadtroopers]

I am off to consume beer and crisps with friends; I'll get back to youse tomorrow.
TTFN