Nothing

[citizenzen]

Different things feel good to different people. To some doing good, being at peace with the world, and feeling at one with God is boring while robbery and rape adds a little spice to life. Why not?

I think people can opt for immediate gratification. I won't deny that.

But as I've gotten older and "wiser" I've come to realize a thing or two. The better nature of people, given an environment to grow and blossom, is a vastly superior state than lying, robbing or cheating.

Being good feels good. Doing right feels right. Once one is on the path, the dharma practically propels oneself along. Quick gain or pleasure through criminality becomes a ridiculous notion... a choice of madmen and beasts.

Poetic huh?

 

[Quahom1]

I think people can opt for immediate gratification. I won't deny that.

But as I've gotten older and "wiser" I've come to realize a thing or two. The better nature of people, given an environment to grow and blossom, is a vastly superior state than lying, robbing or cheating.

Being good feels good. Doing right feels right. Once one is on the path, the dharma practically propels oneself along. Quick gain or pleasure through criminality becomes a ridiculous notion... a choice of madmen and beasts.

Poetic huh?

Ecclesiastes...

 

[Faithfulservant]

Is alleviating suffering and furthering love not enough reason on its own?

It is for some people.

And as Wil points out, all the threats of heaven and hell in the world don't motivate others.

Why do you keep insinuating that Im into threats? You take obscure things I say and twist them around into a threatening thing? Have you had a bad experience? Or maybe like citi you are being convicted? No need to answer that btw.

 

[Faithfulservant]

Be honest with me now. Suppose it were proven in some way that there was no God and no Karma and you developed the ability to become invisible. In other words you could do whatever you want without any fear of consequences. Would you go out and rob liquor stores, rape women, rob banks, and indulge in other similar delights? If not, why not?

people do this every day when they think they can get away with it... but the point is.. how do they know its wrong and why be sneaky? If there was nothing.. who decided right and wrong? How did we come by a conscience?

 

[Faithfulservant]

I think people can opt for immediate gratification. I won't deny that.

But as I've gotten older and "wiser" I've come to realize a thing or two. The better nature of people, given an environment to grow and blossom, is a vastly superior state than lying, robbing or cheating.

Being good feels good. Doing right feels right. Once one is on the path, the dharma practically propels oneself along. Quick gain or pleasure through criminality becomes a ridiculous notion... a choice of madmen and beasts.

Poetic huh?

so WHY does it feel right?
say a man kicks a dog because its in the garbage and the dog whimpers. WHY does the man feel bad at the prick of his conscience.. what is that? Why does it make us feel bad to hurt people?

 

[citizenzen]

so WHY does it feel right?
say a man kicks a dog because its in the garbage and the dog whimpers. WHY does the man feel bad at the prick of his conscience.. what is that? Why does it make us feel bad to hurt people?

Why do people feel a thrill over their favorite athletes achievement?

Why do we cry at movies?

Empathy!

The ability to understand and actually feel another's triumphs and pains.

The Golden Rule. Do unto others...

 

[Faithfulservant]

Why do people feel a thrill over their favorite athletes achievement?

Why do we cry at movies?

Empathy!

The ability to understand and actually feel another's triumphs and pains.

The Golden Rule. Do unto others...

hehe yes but WHO gave us the "golden rule" who put it on our hearts if there was nothing... why arent we like the animals who "evolved" with us? They dont have that conscience and they dont have the side that is terribly wicked that only humans have. They are driven purely by instinct

 

[Nick_A]

people do this every day when they think they can get away with it... but the point is.. how do they know its wrong and why be sneaky? If there was nothing.. who decided right and wrong? How did we come by a conscience?

I believe Plato is right in that inner morality is soul knowledge. External morality or what we are taught only exists for us as compensation for having lost our sensitivity to objective inner morality.

IMO the better question is why Man has as a whole lost its sensitivity to conscience since our potential for conscience is a reality just as our potential for consciousness is a reality. These attributes seem to have been supressed into just a potential as a consequence of the fall of man but how it happened is an interesting psychological question.

 

[Quahom1]

hehe yes but WHO gave us the "golden rule" who put it on our hearts if there was nothing... why arent we like the animals who "evolved" with us? They dont have that conscience and they dont have the side that is terribly wicked that only humans have. They are driven purely by instinct

"And the laws of God are written upon every human heart..."

We know right from wrong. Animals know survival of the fittest, and self first. If I can afford you then I'll help you, but that will ensure my survival as well...

Humans most oft do not think that way...and that is what makes us different.

 

[citizenzen]

IMO the better question is why Man has as a whole lost its sensitivity to conscience since our potential for conscience is a reality just as our potential for consciousness is a reality.

Because social progress happens at an agonizingly slow pace.

We haven't lost it.

We're still in the beginning stages of having found it.

 

[Quahom1]

Because social progress happens at an agonizingly slow pace.

We haven't lost it.

We're still in the beginning stages of having found it.

Um, How long have we been doing this?

5000 years by Abrahamic standards, 100,000 years by humanistic standards...and we still haven't got it right? Social progress my backside. Where is your progress?

We keep doing the same things over and over again...how is that for progress?

 

[citizenzen]

We keep doing the same things over and over again...how is that for progress?

It's due to the high turnover rate.

Or as my grandmother used to say, "Too soon old, too late smart."

 

[Nick_A]

Because social progress happens at an agonizingly slow pace.

We haven't lost it.

We're still in the beginning stages of having found it.

There is nothing new to be found. It is all known. But we also know the joys of power and force. We've acquired a balance. One day we kill and then we heal on the next. What new platitude will add anything new that would diminish the joys of having the upper hand through power and force? If there is a new platitude, I'd love to read it.

The truly infamous Simone is one of the few writing something sensible concerning this question but it is also so insulting that the United States and its diversity and arguments about "whose God" could never have it anymore as a common value so IMO everything must continue as it is.

"The combination of these two facts – the longing in the depth of the heart for absolute good, and the power, though only latent, of directing attention and love to a reality beyond the world and of receiving good from it – constitutes a link which attaches every man without exception to that other reality. Whoever recognizes that reality recognizes that link. Because of it, he holds every human being without any exception as something sacred to which he is bound to show respect. This is the only possible motive for universal respect towards all human beings." Simone Weil

“Draft for A Statement of Human Obligations” SIMONE WEIL, AN ANTHOLOGY ed. Sian Miles​

 

[citizenzen]

There is nothing new to be found. It is all known.

I would agree with this. Everything is known. The path to enlightenment is laid out. All one must do is walk it.

 

[path_of_one]

Why do you keep insinuating that Im into threats? You take obscure things I say and twist them around into a threatening thing? Have you had a bad experience? Or maybe like citi you are being convicted? No need to answer that btw.

FS, I think you think I am responding far more personally than I am.

First, I have no idea what I would be convicted of. I am honest with myself and God. I have faults and flaws. I work on them with sincerity, by the grace of God. I follow Christ's teachings.

So, if you wish to make me out to be some horrible Christian or non-Christian who you think is being convicted, so be it. Whatever makes your worldview make sense to you. I am not harmed by it. I am strong enough to withstand another person thinking ill of me. Lately, I've never felt more in tune with God and more at peace with myself... the way others think about me isn't of much concern.

Second, I am not insinuating you are into threats.

I am making a simple point. Fundamentalist Christianity insists on a physical reality of a heaven and a hell. Heaven is given as reward for upholding the right beliefs and having the right religion- being part of the Christian church, so long as one agrees with particular doctrinal views. Heaven is given out of grace, but only conditionally- and on conditions that privilege belonging to a religion/church and believing certain things, not on conditions of being a good person (the way the Jews and Muslims believe). Hell is given as punishment for the rest.

I call that threatening people and playing on their fears.

It makes worship and faith out to be an investment in the future, out of self-interest, rather than for God's sake. I believe we should worship and have faith and do God's will simply because God is God. Whether we are rewarded or not has nothing to do with it. I woke up this morning, and that is reward enough for me.

Third, have I had a bad experience? I am very, very familiar with fundamentalism. How is being told repeatedly, by varying churches, that genuinely good family members who just don't belong to the "right" church are heading for eternal hellfire a good experience? Oh, and then there was the time that a pastor preached in Calvary Chapel about how "all of the scientists and professors" were anti-God and anti-Christ and how all of us in academia were headed for hell. Nice, huh? Maybe those at Cal Baptist U and Pacific Lutheran U and the other Christian colleges have some sort of out-clause? After years of observation, I was never surprised to see that when the sermon was on hell or the end times, people would get all emotional and rush the altar to "be saved." Somehow, most of those pastors and churches never got around to talking about the poor... even though it's one of the most discussed issues in the Bible. No one felt convicted about living the way we do in the US, when there are children starving. No one seemed concerned that people cheated on each other, slandered and gossiped, were petty. Everyone was on the straight and narrow path to heaven because they signed on to doctrines and beliefs like Biblical inerrancy and a 6-day creation.

One could gossip, lie, steal, and cheat... but if you believe all the miracles literally happened, well, you got the free pass into the pearly gates. Somehow, a Buddhist or Pagan or Hindu could be a great person, compassionate, loving, sincerely dedicated to their faith... but that just ain't enough. Without signing up as a member in the right church, it's hellfire for them.

And then, to top it off, it's not enough to be a member of any Christian church or sect. No. It has to be theirs. I worked in a Christian bookstore for years- at a conference center for longer. We had Christian booksellers attempt to sell us books that were for "converting Catholics to Christianity." Huh? But yes, more than one. And the Amish. And the Quakers. The list went on and on. I had more than one Baptist tell me they suspected the Lutherans and Episcopalians weren't Christian because "they're too liberal." What a mess.

Is any of that a good experience to you? I've attended dozens of churches, done interfaith and inter-denominational work for years. I've seen Christian organizations from the inside-out. I've worked in them.

I think there are many wonderful things about Christianity. I still go to church when I'm in my home-town. I read the scriptures. I pray. I love Jesus. My purpose in life is to give myself to God and to become more loving and compassionate every day. My library is filled with books on reading scripture, the history of the Bible and church, Christian saints' writings up to the modern red-letter Christians.

Yet somehow, it's just not enough, is it?

I'm still not the right kind of Christian, am I? I just need to be convicted, and then suddenly it will all fall into place and I can believe just as I should, just as I am told to by this or that church.

I used to be so sad that Christians would see me the way they do. But then I realized that the only opinion I need to worry about is Christ's.

 

[path_of_one]

"And the laws of God are written upon every human heart..."

We know right from wrong. Animals know survival of the fittest, and self first. If I can afford you then I'll help you, but that will ensure my survival as well...

Humans most oft do not think that way...and that is what makes us different.

I am not so sure some of the social, intelligent animals only know survival of the fittest and self first, either. There's a chimp that has been a foster mom to various orphaned cubs of big cats- cougars, lions, tigers. This doesn't look like blind survival of the fittest to me:

Anjana the chimpanzee befriends two white tiger cubs in South Carolinacubs | The Sun |News

Self first doesn't quite explain inter-species assistance, unless you chalk it up to wholly blind instinct toward altruism... but then human evolutionary biologists have made that exact same argument for the existence of altruism and empathy in humans.

We are social and if the group doesn't survive, we don't survive individually.

It's a matter only of perspective to say that altruism in non-humans is purely biological, while altruism in humans is spiritual.

 

[China Cat Sunflower]

Or, what if there is Something and we've gone through life believing there is nothing for no good reason, except perhaps that it is the bleaker and more punishing worldview and we are too proud to think we need to be comforted.

There's a period of time when newborn babies aren't aware that they are a separate body from the mother. They wish for something like comfort or food, squirm and grunt a bit, and it magically arrives. This is how we all started out. There's a part of us that's angrily indignant at having lost that ability, that magical, sort of oceanic state of oneness with mom. But we are also driven to abandon the mother and set out to define ourselves on our own terms as individuals. So there is this paradoxical dual urge to both surrender self and merge utterly with the Whole, and ruthlessly individuate in order to become "self born" as it were. Religion, as a vehicle, excels at interfacing that paradox.

Chris

 

[17th Angel]

I know the answer to the question! I know! I know!

Because doing good feels good. Being at peace with the world, at one with God, feels good!

Why would anybody trade that in for robbery and rape?

Because that feels good? No wait. Cause that feels better?

 

[iBrian]

hehe yes but WHO gave us the "golden rule" who put it on our hearts if there was nothing... why arent we like the animals who "evolved" with us? They dont have that conscience and they dont have the side that is terribly wicked that only humans have. They are driven purely by instinct

Actually, in socio-biology Altruism is seen as a key evolutionary survival mechanism in social vertebrates.

Dawkins et al (dealing with science only, not addressing religion) suggests that a primary drive in all living things is to pass on their DNA, and key breeding and parental behaviours are focused on this propagation. He calls it the "Selfish Gene" - the need of the one is to simply pass on their genes.

A distinction arises in social animals, where instead of the needs of the one being paramount, instead of the needs of the group are more important - on the grounds that the individual's genes are likely shared within the group.

Hence an individual in a group may be more likely to sacrifice themselves for the preservation of the group, than a non-social individual who has no group with shared genes.

Social animals also need to follow basic social rules in order for the group to survive - random killings of members by another member threatens to destroy the group, and isn't tolerated.

I think The Golden Rule is a way in which humans express internalised socio-biological drives, but yet is shared by other social species.

Even still, when you look at social primate behaviour, it is easy to see so many similarities to basic human behaviour - everything from love and companionship, to violence and war.

I guess I'm going on a general digression, but I just wanted to make a point that social co-operation requires adherence to basic laws within social groups, and the Golden Rule is perhaps arguably present to some degree within many social animals, especially primates.

Just my 2c, though.

 

[nativeastral]

There's a period of time when newborn babies aren't aware that they are a separate body from the mother. They wish for something like comfort or food, squirm and grunt a bit, and it magically arrives. This is how we all started out. There's a part of us that's angrily indignant at having lost that ability, that magical, sort of oceanic state of oneness with mom. But we are also driven to abandon the mother and set out to define ourselves on our own terms as individuals. So there is this paradoxical dual urge to both surrender self and merge utterly with the Whole, and ruthlessly individuate in order to become "self born" as it were. Religion, as a vehicle, excels at interfacing that paradox.

Chris

you been reading freud and sartre recently? great OP!