16 replies to this topic

[Deva]

Interesting video. I liked it from the first line where he is equating religion and art. I basically agree with this idea of the role of religion being about the numinous, the "irrational" and a way of attaining wisdom about the human condition.

Toward the end he uses the word "religiosity" where I might substitute "spirituality" but that is a small quibble. I have not read any of this books, and in fact this is the first I have heard of this guy.

[Brother Jeff]

Bless the LARD, Brother! Agree 100% with Hedges. Thanks for obeying the magical promptings of the Holy Spook in your life and posting that glorious video! Glory!

[LivingLife]

I was one of those its a relationship idiots but as I deconverted, there was some secular truths one could still glean off the gospels.

Religion is derived from the archaic word religare and means to bind fast. Ergo religion is bondage.

Whom the son has set free is free indeed takes on a whole new meaning when read through secular eyes.

Even whenIwazawoo, the gospels resonated in a non religious manner rather that a spiritual truth. What stood out for me was the obvious disdain jesus had for the pious religious of the day and his brood of vipers and whitewashed tombs very epic and oddly still describes christianity to a tee in modern times.

[Antlerman]

I was one of those its a relationship idiots but as I deconverted, there was some secular truths one could still glean off the gospels.

Religion is derived from the archaic word religare and means to bind fast. Ergo religion is bondage.

Whom the son has set free is free indeed takes on a whole new meaning when read through secular eyes.

Even whenIwazawoo, the gospels resonated in a non religious manner rather that a spiritual truth. What stood out for me was the obvious disdain jesus had for the pious religious of the day and his brood of vipers and whitewashed tombs very epic and oddly still describes christianity to a tee in modern times.

This is pretty precisely what I would say, with the added qualification that it takes on a whole new meaning through post-Christian eyes, which includes the secular as well.


As for his presentation in the video, pretty much what I would say too. Religion is not about the "irrational", but the non-rational, and that is something that you see conflated together in the modern atheist movement, as he himself says in this. I applaud smashing irrationality, but challenge tossing everything 'non-rational' into that same smashing floor. That's tossing our humanness in as well.

[Babylonian Dream]

As for his presentation in the video, pretty much what I would say too. Religion is not about the "irrational", but the non-rational, and that is something that you see conflated together in the modern atheist movement, as he himself says in this. I applaud smashing irrationality, but challenge tossing everything 'non-rational' into that same smashing floor. That's tossing our humanness in as well.

My logical overanalytical mind isn't able to distinguish ir-rational from non-rational, they both seem to be the same to me. Both meaning without-rationality.

[Antlerman]

As for his presentation in the video, pretty much what I would say too. Religion is not about the "irrational", but the non-rational, and that is something that you see conflated together in the modern atheist movement, as he himself says in this. I applaud smashing irrationality, but challenge tossing everything 'non-rational' into that same smashing floor. That's tossing our humanness in as well.

My logical overanalytical mind isn't able to distinguish ir-rational from non-rational, they both seem to be the same to me. Both meaning without-rationality.

Irrational means against rationality, or in violation of it. Non-rational simply means they are experiences that are not the result or of the nature of rational thought. He gave examples such as love. Love is something you experience that is non-rational. Irrational on the other hand would be a type of rationality itself, such as denial of the facts with your mind, a cognitive dissonance. See the difference yet? Art is non-rational. Young Earth Creationism is irrational.

[Yrth]

As for his presentation in the video, pretty much what I would say too. Religion is not about the "irrational", but the non-rational, and that is something that you see conflated together in the modern atheist movement, as he himself says in this. I applaud smashing irrationality, but challenge tossing everything 'non-rational' into that same smashing floor. That's tossing our humanness in as well.

My logical overanalytical mind isn't able to distinguish ir-rational from non-rational, they both seem to be the same to me. Both meaning without-rationality.

Irrational means against rationality, or in violation of it. Non-rational simply means they are experiences that are not the result or of the nature of rational thought. He gave examples such as love. Love is something you experience that is non-rational. Irrational on the other hand would be a type of rationality itself, such as denial of the facts with your mind, a cognitive dissonance. See the difference yet? Art is non-rational. Young Earth Creationism is irrational.

Would you say that people often rationalize the non-rational?

[Antlerman]

Just to add one thought to this, where the non-rational aspects of religion becomes conflated with irrationality in the minds of atheists today happens because historically religions use a prerational set of cognitive structures in order to talk about the non-rational. Anytime we have a non-rational experience, we attempt to then talk about and examine it using cognitive, rational structures. Those structures of talking about it which we have inherited through traditional religions of that past are largely mythological in nature, a prerational mode of cognitive thought.

But simply because rationally today someone can say 'there is no evidence that a god exists', no literal being in some magic-realm that mythic structures envision, does not mean that the non-rational experience of the ineffable is therefore invalid. Not at all. To say that, to me, is a rational fallacy, irrationality. What is irrational about it, is the cognitive insistence that because they had mystical experience, non-rational experience, that this proves that the stories of the gods must be true. The only error that is happening is doing so on both sides of that same argument, conflating the rational structures with the non-rational experience.

[Antlerman]

As for his presentation in the video, pretty much what I would say too. Religion is not about the "irrational", but the non-rational, and that is something that you see conflated together in the modern atheist movement, as he himself says in this. I applaud smashing irrationality, but challenge tossing everything 'non-rational' into that same smashing floor. That's tossing our humanness in as well.

My logical overanalytical mind isn't able to distinguish ir-rational from non-rational, they both seem to be the same to me. Both meaning without-rationality.

Irrational means against rationality, or in violation of it. Non-rational simply means they are experiences that are not the result or of the nature of rational thought. He gave examples such as love. Love is something you experience that is non-rational. Irrational on the other hand would be a type of rationality itself, such as denial of the facts with your mind, a cognitive dissonance. See the difference yet? Art is non-rational. Young Earth Creationism is irrational.

Would you say that people often rationalize the non-rational?

Haha, I just added a new post with further thoughts that address just this question! (see post above this one)

[Antlerman]

Another clarification... in what I said about the conflation of the non-rational and the mythic structures, which in the face of rationality are irrational, when someone in mythic religious structures becomes irrational in defending their experiences, they do so because they too conflate a mental understanding with the validity of the experience. They don't know rationally how to differentiate the mental structures from the non-rational itself. To invalidate their 'beliefs' (which are rational mental structures) to them invalidates the legitimacy of their experience. So since they don't know any other language structures, they will defend those structures irrationality, violating known facts, such as the age of the earth, evolution, etc.

The modern atheist does just the opposite in saying that because the way the 'believer' believes about these experiences is flawed, therefore the whole experience is just a made up thing in their heads - conflating non-rational experience with cognitive thoughts, i.e., "we just made ourselves believe it and therefore had a 'warm-fuzzy' experience", and such. Both are conflating the non-rational with the rational/irrational. 'If you are rational, you should reject anything that can't be penetrated by reason.', goes the line of reasoning. That is what I say is itself likewise irrational.

[Yrth]

I have this thread bookmarked - there's so much here.

I was thinking that eating food is a good metaphor for non-rational experience.

Extending that a bit -- irrational religious reactions would be to invent a cult to worship chocolate, and then some modern atheists would boycott chocolate entirely because of its association with the cult's irrational beliefs. Whereas everyone else can just enjoy their chocolate without deify or demonizing it.

[RintrahRoars]

Great little talk. Also kudos to Mr. Hedges for suing the government/Obama over the National Defense Authorization Act.

[Babylonian Dream]

Antlerman, I see what you're saying. I always find your discussions on religion and myth interesting, even if I never end up saying much in them. I tend to read them and am intrigued.

[micksherlock]

Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the philosophers as false, and by the rulers as useful.
—Seneca the Younger

[micksherlock]

Another clarification... in what I said about the conflation of the non-rational and the mythic structures, which in the face of rationality are irrational, when someone in mythic religious structures becomes irrational in defending their experiences, they do so because they too conflate a mental understanding with the validity of the experience. They don't know rationally how to differentiate the mental structures from the non-rational itself. To invalidate their 'beliefs' (which are rational mental structures) to them invalidates the legitimacy of their experience. So since they don't know any other language structures, they will defend those structures irrationality, violating known facts, such as the age of the earth, evolution, etc.

The modern atheist does just the opposite in saying that because the way the 'believer' believes about these experiences is flawed, therefore the whole experience is just a made up thing in their heads - conflating non-rational experience with cognitive thoughts, i.e., "we just made ourselves believe it and therefore had a 'warm-fuzzy' experience", and such. Both are conflating the non-rational with the rational/irrational. 'If you are rational, you should reject anything that can't be penetrated by reason.', goes the line of reasoning. That is what I say is itself likewise irrational.

I really like what you have said here. It reminds me of something J. Krishnamurti once said:

Through experience you hope to touch the truth of your belief, to prove it to yourself, but this belief conditions your experience. It isn't that the experience comes to prove the belief, but rather that the belief begets the experience. Your belief in God will give you the experience of what you call God. You will always experience what you believe and nothing else. And this invalidates your experience. The Christian will see virgins, angels and Christ, and the Hindu will see similar deities in extravagant plurality. The Muslim, the Buddhist, the Jew and the Communist are the same. Belief conditions its own supposed proof. What is important is not what you believe but only why you believe at all. Why do you believe? And what difference does it make to what actually is whether you believe one thing or another? Facts are not influenced by belief or disbelief. So one has to ask why one believes at all in anything; what is the basis of belief? Is it fear, is it the uncertainty of life - the fear of the unknown the lack of security in this ever-changing world? Is it the insecurity of relationship, or is it that faced with the immensity of life, and not understanding it, one encloses oneself in the refuge of belief? So, if I may ask you, if you had no fear at all, would you have any belief?

Jiddu Krishnamurti. The Urgency of Change. Harper and Row. (1977) Pg. 98-99.


If you haven't read Krishnamurti's work, which I feel you may have, I would highly recommend it.