A woman convicted over her part in the Jan. 6 Capitol riot said she rejected Trump's pardon because it would be a "slap in the face to Capitol police officers."
But to an atheist, the lines are in no way hazy between prayer and meditation.
This is not a true statement. But if you make a simple change, it becomes true.
But to me, the lines are in no way hazy between prayer and meditation.
Don’t assume you speak for everyone. You don’t.
Feel free to explore the countless - countless - examples of mindfulness and meditation scattered throughout almost every spiritual and religious practice from western natives to eastern cultures to polytheistic pantheons to - yes- Abrahamic religions.
Bow your head, make some noise. Raise your head, make some noise. Wash your hands. Eat this meal, share it with your neighbor. Speak your gratitude for the food. Speak your gratitude for your life, for your health, for your family. Speak your gratitude for your neighbor. Wish them peace and good fortune. Sing this song. Smell this incense. Listen to this music.
Stand, and think about what you want. Speak these desires to yourself, to your leader, to the universe. Sit, and listen to the sound of nothing. Kneel, and think about what you need. Speak these needs out loud. Share them with your neighbors. Hear their needs. Bear your burdens together.
Too many people think religion is nothing more than a plague. In truth it is nothing more than a tool. Yes, one that was and is often used for great evil. But still just a tool.
Modern spiritualism, neurology, philosophy, psychology - they all point toward the conclusion that religion in all its forms served a number of useful purposes for the development of the human community and the maintenance of the human psyche. It’s not necessary, nor is it always good. In fact in the modern day it’s often bad.
But that doesn’t change the fact that it was probably an inevitable part of apes climbing down from the trees, and it’s not hard to imagine why people still find a use for it.
But you don’t see how it’s easy to rewrite something without losing its original purpose and value? How the step can serve the exact same psychological niche for an athiest as it does for a thiest, without actually changing the cognitive and emotional processes they need to undergo for sobriety or self-improvement?
Sure sounds like it is losing its original purpose to me- to bring people closer to the Christian god, since the 12 steps were formed from a Christian prayer group.
I am describing its original purpose in the sense of prayer’s original purpose in psychology and sociology.
One can learn lessons from religious practices without becoming religious in the process.
Besides prayer in general, take another look at the step:
… improve our conscious contact with God as we understood Him, praying only for knowledge of His will for us and the power to carry that out.
Do you know what that is? Look at it as an athiest, and imagine what purpose that step serves.
Seeking to understood God and his will? That’s not - as many would put it - a human trying to communicate with a Sky Dad.
That’s a human trying to understand his own Coherent Extrapolated Volition:
“our wish if we knew more, thought faster, were more the people we wished we were, had grown up farther together; where the extrapolation converges rather than diverges, where our wishes cohere rather than interfere; extrapolated as we wish that extrapolated, interpreted as we wish that interpreted”
When a human makes a gesture and a sound on cue, they’re usually engaging in in-group signalling. But when a human prays and meditates on finding God’s Will for them, they are trying to imagine their own desires and needs from the standpoint of a superior being. One with more information, a greater mind, a greater moral compass. They are trying to make themselves better by imagining the ways they could be better.
Athiests do this too, they just call it cognitive behavioral therapy and moral philosophy.
I’m looking at it as an atheist and it absolutely looks like a human trying to communicate to a god to me. I have no idea how to interpret “improve our conscious contact with God” any other way.
I have no idea how to interpret “improve our conscious contact with God” any other way.
Then you’re not experiencing any empathy for them. You’re not actively putting yourself in their perspective, their world. You’re accepting what they say, not extrapolating from that to understand what they think.
Religious people generally don’t hear voices in their head. We know God doesn’t talk to them. They know God doesn’t talk to them. They might believe in signs or whatever, but they don’t hear a voice when they pray, and they certainly don’t expect to.
From the outside perspective of an athiest, you should be able to see that all they’re really doing is using their imagination to simulate a being greater than themselves and then asking “what would that being want for my life?”
This is not very functionally different from asking ourselves “if I was a better person, what would I want for my life?”
The theistic process could be corrupted by malformed ideas about the things a deity would want, sure. But the athiestic process could also be corrupted by malformed ideas about the things a good person would want.
I have no idea how to interpret “improve our conscious contact with God” any other way.
… All they’re really doing is using their imagination to simulate a being greater than themselves and then asking “what would that being want for my life?”
This is a secular interpretation of “improve our conscious contact with God” that doesn’t actually involve “communicating with a God”
Is there something about this interpretation that you don’t understand or disagree with?
This is not a true statement. But if you make a simple change, it becomes true.
Don’t assume you speak for everyone. You don’t.
Feel free to explore the countless - countless - examples of mindfulness and meditation scattered throughout almost every spiritual and religious practice from western natives to eastern cultures to polytheistic pantheons to - yes- Abrahamic religions.
Bow your head, make some noise. Raise your head, make some noise. Wash your hands. Eat this meal, share it with your neighbor. Speak your gratitude for the food. Speak your gratitude for your life, for your health, for your family. Speak your gratitude for your neighbor. Wish them peace and good fortune. Sing this song. Smell this incense. Listen to this music.
Stand, and think about what you want. Speak these desires to yourself, to your leader, to the universe. Sit, and listen to the sound of nothing. Kneel, and think about what you need. Speak these needs out loud. Share them with your neighbors. Hear their needs. Bear your burdens together.
Too many people think religion is nothing more than a plague. In truth it is nothing more than a tool. Yes, one that was and is often used for great evil. But still just a tool.
Modern spiritualism, neurology, philosophy, psychology - they all point toward the conclusion that religion in all its forms served a number of useful purposes for the development of the human community and the maintenance of the human psyche. It’s not necessary, nor is it always good. In fact in the modern day it’s often bad.
But that doesn’t change the fact that it was probably an inevitable part of apes climbing down from the trees, and it’s not hard to imagine why people still find a use for it.
Yes, yet again, I understand that if you rewrite things, they change.
But you don’t see how it’s easy to rewrite something without losing its original purpose and value? How the step can serve the exact same psychological niche for an athiest as it does for a thiest, without actually changing the cognitive and emotional processes they need to undergo for sobriety or self-improvement?
Sure sounds like it is losing its original purpose to me- to bring people closer to the Christian god, since the 12 steps were formed from a Christian prayer group.
I am describing its original purpose in the sense of prayer’s original purpose in psychology and sociology.
One can learn lessons from religious practices without becoming religious in the process.
Besides prayer in general, take another look at the step:
Do you know what that is? Look at it as an athiest, and imagine what purpose that step serves.
Seeking to understood God and his will? That’s not - as many would put it - a human trying to communicate with a Sky Dad.
That’s a human trying to understand his own Coherent Extrapolated Volition: “our wish if we knew more, thought faster, were more the people we wished we were, had grown up farther together; where the extrapolation converges rather than diverges, where our wishes cohere rather than interfere; extrapolated as we wish that extrapolated, interpreted as we wish that interpreted”
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friendly_artificial_intelligence
When a human makes a gesture and a sound on cue, they’re usually engaging in in-group signalling. But when a human prays and meditates on finding God’s Will for them, they are trying to imagine their own desires and needs from the standpoint of a superior being. One with more information, a greater mind, a greater moral compass. They are trying to make themselves better by imagining the ways they could be better.
Athiests do this too, they just call it cognitive behavioral therapy and moral philosophy.
I’m looking at it as an atheist and it absolutely looks like a human trying to communicate to a god to me. I have no idea how to interpret “improve our conscious contact with God” any other way.
Then you’re not experiencing any empathy for them. You’re not actively putting yourself in their perspective, their world. You’re accepting what they say, not extrapolating from that to understand what they think.
Religious people generally don’t hear voices in their head. We know God doesn’t talk to them. They know God doesn’t talk to them. They might believe in signs or whatever, but they don’t hear a voice when they pray, and they certainly don’t expect to.
From the outside perspective of an athiest, you should be able to see that all they’re really doing is using their imagination to simulate a being greater than themselves and then asking “what would that being want for my life?”
This is not very functionally different from asking ourselves “if I was a better person, what would I want for my life?”
The theistic process could be corrupted by malformed ideas about the things a deity would want, sure. But the athiestic process could also be corrupted by malformed ideas about the things a good person would want.
I did exactly what you asked me to do and now you’re saying I did it wrong.
This is a secular interpretation of “improve our conscious contact with God” that doesn’t actually involve “communicating with a God”
Is there something about this interpretation that you don’t understand or disagree with?