Proselytizing

[steve_bank]

Here's an interesting article about awe. https://www.atlasobscura.com/articles/the-mind-bending-science-of-awe

It touches on how some people seek agency to explain something bigger than their comprehension. That'd relate to your idea that an emotion like this has something to do with teleology. "Random" seems too threatening, so people need to put this big scary thing "universe" into order. Everyone does. But they do it in different ways. As the article says: "You gravitate towards whatever explanatory framework you prefer".

A couple years back, he and a colleague looked at how people deal with the uncertainty inherent in awe. They found that awe seems to nudge people towards “agentic explanation”—they’re less likely to accept that something happened randomly.

Instead, they attribute it to an agent, like a god, a supernatural force, or a person. “There’s something about awe that seems intimately related to that,” says Valdesolo. In their experiments, people in a state of awe were more likely to report belief in supernatural forces, and to believe that a random series of numbers was created by a human. His recent work indicates that awe also makes people more likely to report that science explains all natural events.

“It generally increases this desire to explain what’s in front of you,” says Valdesolo. “You gravitate towards whatever explanatory framework you prefer.”

The fundamental role of religion is coping with reality.

 

[steve_bank]

Lion is simply towing the party line. He obviously accepts that people experience joy, wonder, happiness regardless of religious affiliation. He just won't admit it.

Admit it? Wut?
You haven't been paying attention.

I've been saying all along that quasi-spiritual quasi-religious awe displayed by atheists is perfectly understandable - to me - because we are spiritual beings made in God's likeness.
But it is inexplicable why atheists exhibit these vestigial expressions of 'Saganism' (religiosity) when/if they themselves disavow any teleology.

There is nothing quasi about spiritual aspects of secular atheists. Having a spiritual aspect of secular life can be far more rewarding than balling about praising an imaginary god.

The questions of good and evil, goodness, morality and spiritual vs material living were explored by the ancient Greeks while Jews were still wandering around in captivity. Abrahamic morality derived from the bible is disjointed, inconsistent, and contradictory. Contrasted to the Greeks who thought through issues in depth and put it to paper. Schools of thought with consistent well thought out views.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

I've been saying all along that quasi-spiritual quasi-religious awe displayed by atheists is perfectly understandable - to me - because we are spiritual beings...

I do like my spirits so maybe you have a point.

 

[SLD]

Tigers said he would find it hard/impossible to explain what could be 'wondrous' about about nature if it wasn't caused by God.

Like me, he is asking the atheist to explain - in rational terms - why an uncaused, deterministic natural event would cause a lump in your throat. Secular tears of joy.

He didn't say atheists can't burst into song...The Hills Are Alive With The Sound of Music. He just wants atheists who do, to explain what the big deal is about few mountains in Switzerland.

The irony is there are millions of theists (who are scientists) and for whom scientific discovery reinforces their thanksgiving and worship of The Creator.

DNA is God's intellectual property. He deserves praise. But if you claim DNA is the unintended, accidental result of random/spontaneous evolution then why get excited?

Ok. Bit how does a question of atheist feelings and emotions vs theist feelings and emotions factor into a proof of god in any way?

As an elderly man I live with here likes to say, every day you wake up is a wondrous day.

Why be happy at all? If I had a church it would be outside on a clear night in the middle of Montana seeing the Milky Way. I uses to a picture of the Milky Way in my office for inspiration. The one made up of thousands of individual photos. I also had a model of Chuck Yeager's X1 the Glamorous Glynis named after his wife.

Looking at the Miley Way poster realizing we are but one tiny spec in all of it for me involes humility. All our human pettiness is essentially bulshit in the universe.

Or the first time I soloed in a small plane on a clear night with without light p9olution. One can have a religious experience without being religious. Theist attribute to natural feelings to a deity.

On an old Travis Smiley show I listened to a neuroscientist who was investigating religious experience. He did brain scans of theist while praying and communing with god.

It wasn't intended but he ended up with secular scientists in the control group. To make a long story short what he found was theists contemplating god and scientist's contemplating the universe both lit up the same area of the brain.

His conclusion was that secular scientific awe or majesty was the same feeling as a religious experience. The difference being subjective interpretation of the experience.

That is what makes sense to me in general. If we did not all have the same feelings and emotions then communication would be impossible.

Religions claim a special unique experience.

Well said. My version of church is precisely that. I explore the universe as an amateur astronomer, studying its design, and history and recently trying to photograph what I see as its beauty.

While I do not believe in a supernatural being and thus am classsified as an atheist, I sometimes like to call myself a radical ecumenicalist. We all worship the same god. Some of us just spell it N A T U R E. The only difference between us is ritual.

SLD

 

[bigfield]

I've been saying all along that quasi-spiritual quasi-religious awe displayed by atheists is perfectly understandable - to me - because we are spiritual beings made in God's likeness.

This is just a Goddidit argument.

Sceptic: "I don't know how the universe began."
Christian: "I know: Goddidit."

Sceptic: "I don't know why humans are awed by things."
Christian: "I know: Goddidit."

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Tigers said he would find it hard/impossible to explain what could be 'wondrous' about about nature if it wasn't caused by God.

Like me, he is asking the atheist to explain - in rational terms - why an uncaused, deterministic natural event would cause a lump in your throat. Secular tears of joy.

He didn't say atheists can't burst into song...The Hills Are Alive With The Sound of Music. He just wants atheists who do, to explain what the big deal is about few mountains in Switzerland.

The irony is there are millions of theists (who are scientists) and for whom scientific discovery reinforces their thanksgiving and worship of The Creator.

DNA is God's intellectual property. He deserves praise. But if you claim DNA is the unintended, accidental result of random/spontaneous evolution then why get excited?

Ok. Bit how does a question of atheist feelings and emotions vs theist feelings and emotions factor into a proof of god in any way?

As an elderly man I live with here likes to say, every day you wake up is a wondrous day.

Why be happy at all? If I had a church it would be outside on a clear night in the middle of Montana seeing the Milky Way. I uses to a picture of the Milky Way in my office for inspiration. The one made up of thousands of individual photos. I also had a model of Chuck Yeager's X1 the Glamorous Glynis named after his wife.

Looking at the Miley Way poster realizing we are but one tiny spec in all of it for me involes humility. All our human pettiness is essentially bulshit in the universe.

Or the first time I soloed in a small plane on a clear night with without light p9olution. One can have a religious experience without being religious. Theist attribute to natural feelings to a deity.

On an old Travis Smiley show I listened to a neuroscientist who was investigating religious experience. He did brain scans of theist while praying and communing with god.

It wasn't intended but he ended up with secular scientists in the control group. To make a long story short what he found was theists contemplating god and scientist's contemplating the universe both lit up the same area of the brain.

His conclusion was that secular scientific awe or majesty was the same feeling as a religious experience. The difference being subjective interpretation of the experience.

That is what makes sense to me in general. If we did not all have the same feelings and emotions then communication would be impossible.

Religions claim a special unique experience.

Well said. My version of church is precisely that. I explore the universe as an amateur astronomer, studying its design, and history and recently trying to photograph what I see as its beauty.

While I do not believe in a supernatural being and thus am classsified as an atheist, I sometimes like to call myself a radical ecumenicalist. We all worship the same god. Some of us just spell it N A T U R E. The only difference between us is ritual.

SLD

Ritual and language.

Religion has lots of additional words and labels for things that can only be described using more religious words and labels. They're not things you can look at and examine and quantify. Nature always comes first, and then comes religion, always as an attempt to understand what is being experienced.

 

[steve_bank]

Tigers said he would find it hard/impossible to explain what could be 'wondrous' about about nature if it wasn't caused by God.

Like me, he is asking the atheist to explain - in rational terms - why an uncaused, deterministic natural event would cause a lump in your throat. Secular tears of joy.

He didn't say atheists can't burst into song...The Hills Are Alive With The Sound of Music. He just wants atheists who do, to explain what the big deal is about few mountains in Switzerland.

The irony is there are millions of theists (who are scientists) and for whom scientific discovery reinforces their thanksgiving and worship of The Creator.

DNA is God's intellectual property. He deserves praise. But if you claim DNA is the unintended, accidental result of random/spontaneous evolution then why get excited?

Ok. Bit how does a question of atheist feelings and emotions vs theist feelings and emotions factor into a proof of god in any way?

As an elderly man I live with here likes to say, every day you wake up is a wondrous day.

Why be happy at all? If I had a church it would be outside on a clear night in the middle of Montana seeing the Milky Way. I uses to a picture of the Milky Way in my office for inspiration. The one made up of thousands of individual photos. I also had a model of Chuck Yeager's X1 the Glamorous Glynis named after his wife.

Looking at the Miley Way poster realizing we are but one tiny spec in all of it for me involes humility. All our human pettiness is essentially bulshit in the universe.

Or the first time I soloed in a small plane on a clear night with without light p9olution. One can have a religious experience without being religious. Theist attribute to natural feelings to a deity.

On an old Travis Smiley show I listened to a neuroscientist who was investigating religious experience. He did brain scans of theist while praying and communing with god.

It wasn't intended but he ended up with secular scientists in the control group. To make a long story short what he found was theists contemplating god and scientist's contemplating the universe both lit up the same area of the brain.

His conclusion was that secular scientific awe or majesty was the same feeling as a religious experience. The difference being subjective interpretation of the experience.

That is what makes sense to me in general. If we did not all have the same feelings and emotions then communication would be impossible.

Religions claim a special unique experience.

Well said. My version of church is precisely that. I explore the universe as an amateur astronomer, studying its design, and history and recently trying to photograph what I see as its beauty.

While I do not believe in a supernatural being and thus am classsified as an atheist, I sometimes like to call myself a radical ecumenicalist. We all worship the same god. Some of us just spell it N A T U R E. The only difference between us is ritual.

SLD

Way back in the 70s I was taking an astronomy class at a5 a small state school. There was a telescope on the top of one of the buildings. One night I ran into the prof on campus mad he invited me up. He put the telescope on Saturn. I could see the rings and a shadow cast by the rings.

No explanation as to why, but it was an experience beyond simple observation.

 

[Lion IRC]

I've been saying all along that quasi-spiritual quasi-religious awe displayed by atheists is perfectly understandable - to me - because we are spiritual beings made in God's likeness.

This is just a Goddidit argument.

Sceptic: "I don't know how the universe began."
Christian: "I know: Goddidit."

Sceptic: "I don't know why humans are awed by things."
Christian: "I know: Goddidit."

*Sigh*

No - this is a question about two different responses to the same event.
The night sky.

"...thank you oh mighty sky god. The beauty of thine works is so great and thy majesty immeasurable"

"...the most poetic thing I know about physics: You are all stardust. You couldn’t be here if stars hadn’t exploded, because the elements - the carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, iron, all the things that matter for evolution and for life - weren’t created at the beginning of time. They were created in the nuclear furnaces of stars, and the only way for them to get into your body is if those stars were kind enough to explode. So, forget Jesus. The stars died so that you could be here today."

Why express awe the way Krauss does when the stars and the star dust (from which we are made) are equal constituents of an uncaused, unguided, past-eternal perpetual motion machine?

 

[bilby]

I've been saying all along that quasi-spiritual quasi-religious awe displayed by atheists is perfectly understandable - to me - because we are spiritual beings made in God's likeness.

This is just a Goddidit argument.

Sceptic: "I don't know how the universe began."
Christian: "I know: Goddidit."

Sceptic: "I don't know why humans are awed by things."
Christian: "I know: Goddidit."

*Sigh*

No - this is a question about two different responses to the same event.
The night sky.

"...thank you oh mighty sky god. The beauty of thine works is so great and thy majesty immeasurable"

"...the most poetic thing I know about physics: You are all stardust. You couldn’t be here if stars hadn’t exploded, because the elements - the carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, iron, all the things that matter for evolution and for life - weren’t created at the beginning of time. They were created in the nuclear furnaces of stars, and the only way for them to get into your body is if those stars were kind enough to explode. So, forget Jesus. The stars died so that you could be here today."

Why express awe the way Krauss does when the stars and the star dust (from which we are made) are equal constituents of an uncaused, unguided, past-eternal perpetual motion machine?

*Sigh*

Because we have a functioning endocrine system.

 

[abaddon]

Why express awe the way Krauss does when the stars and the star dust (from which we are made) are equal constituents of an uncaused, unguided, past-eternal perpetual motion machine?

Why express enjoyment the way art-lovers do when the pigment and oil (from which paintings are made) are equal constituents of an uncaused, unguided, past-eternal perpetual motion machine?

 

[skepticalbip]

I've been saying all along that quasi-spiritual quasi-religious awe displayed by atheists is perfectly understandable - to me - because we are spiritual beings made in God's likeness.

This is just a Goddidit argument.

Sceptic: "I don't know how the universe began."
Christian: "I know: Goddidit."

Sceptic: "I don't know why humans are awed by things."
Christian: "I know: Goddidit."

*Sigh*

No - this is a question about two different responses to the same event.
The night sky.

"...thank you oh mighty sky god. The beauty of thine works is so great and thy majesty immeasurable"

"...the most poetic thing I know about physics: You are all stardust. You couldn’t be here if stars hadn’t exploded, because the elements - the carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, iron, all the things that matter for evolution and for life - weren’t created at the beginning of time. They were created in the nuclear furnaces of stars, and the only way for them to get into your body is if those stars were kind enough to explode. So, forget Jesus. The stars died so that you could be here today."

Why express awe the way Krauss does when the stars and the star dust (from which we are made) are equal constituents of an uncaused, unguided, past-eternal perpetual motion machine?

It all depends on the mindset of the person who is in awe of the sight.

Someone who is not a theist but believes in magic is in awe of the amazing magic at work.
Someone who believes they are a brain in a jar living in "the matrix" controlled by an alien culture is in awe of their controllers elaborate control.
Someone who is a theist is in awe of their concept of a god doing it.
Someone who understands a fair amount about science is in awe how such amazing structures arises based on such simple physical laws.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Someone who understands a fair amount about science is in awe how such amazing structures arises based on such simple physical laws.

Scientific curiosity ultimately leads one to discover how little he really knows about nature and the cosmos. I'm not sure how that relates to religious pseudo-knowledge.

What do people with degrees in divinity actually study? Do they study about other people who also studied divinity? I mean you can't do experiments or make observations that lead to hypotheses and more experiments and more knowledge, so what does one spend time doing? How many times can you say that an invisible spaceman is mysterious and unknowable?

 

[Rhea]

Why express awe the way Krauss does when the stars and the star dust (from which we are made) are equal constituents of an uncaused, unguided, past-eternal perpetual motion machine?

You really don’t get it? You honestly cannot find something beautiful unless someone made it for you?
That’s so weird.

And so you must be in awe of everything then, right? Every. Thing.
Fire Ants.
Parasitic Wasps.
Potholes.
Snot.

 

[WAB]

Why express awe the way Krauss does when the stars and the star dust (from which we are made) are equal constituents of an uncaused, unguided, past-eternal perpetual motion machine?

You really don’t get it? You honestly cannot find something beautiful unless someone made it for you?
That’s so weird.

And so you must be in awe of everything then, right? Every. Thing.
Fire Ants.
Parasitic Wasps.
Potholes.
Snot.

Snot is important.

I think it's all about accepting everything. It's a balance. We wouldn't appreciate beauty without ugliness, we wouldn't appreciate pleasure without pain.

Read Spinoza.

Or don't.

 

[bigfield]

Why express awe the way Krauss does when the stars and the star dust (from which we are made) are equal constituents of an uncaused, unguided, past-eternal perpetual motion machine?

You already gave your answer:

I've been saying all along that quasi-spiritual quasi-religious awe displayed by atheists is perfectly understandable - to me - because we are spiritual beings made in God's likeness.

i.e. "Goddidit."

 

[skepticalbip]

Someone who understands a fair amount about science is in awe how such amazing structures arises based on such simple physical laws.

Scientific curiosity ultimately leads one to discover how little he really knows about nature and the cosmos. I'm not sure how that relates to religious pseudo-knowledge.

I don't know what your point is. The reason science understands that there is a lot that they don't yet know is that they have learned enough about how nature works to discover those as yet unknowns exist. They are then driven to make those unknowns knowns and uncover the unknown unknowns behind that. It is those who understand little about the physical laws who believe they have the answer to everything - their answer to anything they don't understand (even if it is well understood by others) to magic or god and honestly believe that is an answer.

 

[abaddon]

Why express awe the way Krauss does when the stars and the star dust (from which we are made) are equal constituents of an uncaused, unguided, past-eternal perpetual motion machine?

You really don’t get it? You honestly cannot find something beautiful unless someone made it for you?
That’s so weird.

It's weird because he's going on about emotions too much. It obscured his point.

He's saying if atheists have life-enriching emotions that save us from emotional devastation at the godless universe, we've stolen them from religion and not given credit.

Lion says the question is about "two different responses to the same event". Yeah... but the two responses are not the feelings he goes on about. Awe's awe, whoever's feeling it. The "mapping", the narrative about the world, is what's different. Religion anthropomorphizes to give everything a friendly face. Science wants control by understanding the mechanism.

So, I think Lion uses emotions to say: "Life would suck if it weren't for God. So it must suck for you atheists. And if it doesn't seem to suck for you then you're stealing emotions (and thus meaningfulness) from religion". That, or: "There's something divine in you, or else you wouldn't manage to recognize beauty in the universe. And you're ingrates to not give credit where it's due". (Or both at once and confusedly).

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Someone who understands a fair amount about science is in awe how such amazing structures arises based on such simple physical laws.

Scientific curiosity ultimately leads one to discover how little he really knows about nature and the cosmos. I'm not sure how that relates to religious pseudo-knowledge.

I don't know what your point is. The reason science understands that there is a lot that they don't yet know is that they have learned enough about how nature works to discover those as yet unknowns exist. They are then driven to make those unknowns knowns and uncover the unknown unknowns behind that. It is those who understand little about the physical laws who believe they have the answer to everything - their answer to anything they don't understand (even if it is well understood by others) to magic or god and honestly believe that is an answer.

My point is simply that it takes a degree of scientific knowledge to make the statement you just made. Only a reasonably educated person can come to the awareness you just expressed. My coworker says it best, "When you don't know what you don't know you think you know." I think this is demonstrated incontrovertibly by Dunning Kruger.

What has this to do with proselytizing? People who preach and try to convert religiously don't know what they don't know.

 

[steve_bank]

I do not know how representative lion is of evangelical types, but his discourse fits the overall Christian narrative that if you do not believe you are less than human and immoral. It is inherent in the attitude of a Christian who approaches a stranger looking to convert.

You are fucked up...and Jesus saves.

 

[Lion IRC]

The "overall Christian narrative" is that Jesus spent more time with the down and out and the poor in spirit, than with anyone else, and He defended His reason for doing so in the face of criticism from self-righteous 'believers' who wondered why He would bother.

And if you read the story of the Prodigal son you'll see that it's we who have to decide whether we're happy living the 'good' life spending our inheritance or feeding swine or returning to Our Father who never stopped loving us.

Jesus doesn't force salvation on anyone.