Do atheists understand abstract language?

Post Reply New Topic

I can understand if it means nothing to you. It took me a very long time to grasp it. But as I have bit by bit integrated the analysis I have found it increasingly liberating. I am one of the small, but significant, minority who take language, ( especially "abstract language" ), very literally, have worshipped it, without realising it, and allowed it to rule my life.

I have realised why so many spiritual "teaching" methods, whether folk/fairytales, Nasruddin's tales, parables, zen koans etc, etc, are so "concrete". By describing mundane daily events or strange but still physical/bodily happenings, without using abstract language, they bypass/penetrate the prepackaged/"absolute" perspective created by abstract language, and shake it up from the inside.

.

:lol:

Yes, that's it! And you have put it really well/clearly too. Thank you very much! that has really helped me see what I have been trying to express.
.

Last edited by ouinon on 27 May 2009, 6:38 pm, edited 1 time in total.

See there are two separate concept being discussed here.

You are implying that i don't understand abstract language, which is false. Most language is abstract, and programming is a big part of my life.

The connection with god/atheist is what I don't understand. That connection hasn't been established.

Also argument over language (the meaning of) is not even philosophy/metaphysics at a stretch. It is just semantics/syntax.

Love, Beauty, Truth are all abstract terms. They don't exist in an objective world but they are created by our subjective experiences. Mystical moments are feelings that are just as profound if not more than these three concepts but it is achieved through spiritual moments. Now each one of these concepts is experienced through something that is objective. For example, a sunset may strike someone as Beauty. A person may instill feelings of love to another person. Another person may feel a strong idea for truth to which they base their values on. A person undergoing a spiritual quest may experience a mystical moment.

Drugs do not create any of these abstract concepts but they may alter a person's ability to perceive something. It may be right or wrong to a bystander watching. But, why don't we all just focus on ourselves rather than judge other people as being dumb or delusional. Mind your own business. We don't need thought police.

"The Kingdom of Heaven is Within."

Things are subjective because experience is relative, even stuff we can see, touch and taste. Just because it is subjective doesn't make it supernatural.

To a lesser or greater extent people are living in fantasy, so the lines are blurred between reality and make believe.

In other words, we could all be living in the matrix, be a brain in a jar or whatever.

Well, he skull is a kind of jar. And the input from the senses has been so wildly interpreted or misinterpreted in so many ways that the matrix isn't all that far off the mark. The only difference is that we don't all live in the same misinterpretation.

Surprisingly, it's been shown it's not a matrix but a third rank tensor. Common mistake, totally understandable.

If anything, atheists are more likely to be versed in abstract reasoning because they've probably mulled over the concept of the Judeo-Christian god some times in coming to the conclusion that they are atheist. Abstract reasoning is necessary for mathematics, physics, and the rest of the hard sciences.

Archetypes are not innate. Archetypes and memeplexes are developed through human culture; ideas are passed from one person to another, and some become more strongly associated with others. Politicians may exploit this to send a "coded message" to a constituency by using a phrase that's harmless to the general population but signifies something more to another subset (a wink to the Christian Right, for example, by using biblically inspired language). The ability to interpet symbols and ideas is necessary to appreciate literature, paintings, plays, music, and other forms of art.

If archetypes are not innate, but mere memeplexes, then why do all humans have the same response to dark, shadowy figures or bright, shining objects. People have to consciously train themselves not to fear snakes or cringe at the depiction of one in books or illustrations. What about dragons? Think about seeing a dragon. What is your first response to that image?

Demons are known in every culture. Some native people refer to aliens as "star people". How would shamans living in rain forests have any idea about ufo's and aliens without knowing about technology? I'm not saying it's all real and hidden. But, you can't deny that people share common beliefs about these archetypes. If they are all hallucinating as Dawkins would like people to believe, then why? Why is someone like Dawkins so against studying this? He seems to be rather flippant and dismissive to these ideas. That doesn't sound like a scientific mind.

To say "give me proof" is a childish response. All discoveries begin with speculation. I've heard him put down speculation as though it was unworthy of any thought. What a waste. People look up to this man too. If all we believed was what was already proven, we would stop learning anything new.

Anyways, I'm repeating myself again. I'm done with this forum.

You're kidding, right?
1) The question is absurd and insulting.
2) Have you heard that the female presentation of Asperger's is "the little philosopher" rather than "the little professor?" It's what we do.
3) It's like asking, "are you asleep?" The kind of person who would give the answer you're looking for wouldn't be able to answer and wouldn't be in this RRP forum.

Archetypes, symbols, metaphores, models, literary devices, fairy tales, parables, mental tools... short cuts that help us to grasp complex concepts.
Analogies are good, but they all break down eventually if you take them too seriously. I see them everywhere. It's one of my dirty little secrets.

Not at all. Freedom is something to aim for, something that has always been in short supply. A huge chunk of what little we had has been taken away and we want it back. "Justice" needs a definition before we can quibble here. The different definitions can be very good, totally barbaric or just plain stupid. "Love" is a choice you make, consciously or unconsciously, based on whatever reality or fantasy works for you. "Good" is a value judgment. They are ideals, not conscious entities in themselves.
No connection.

Death: Humans need fantasy to be human. To be the place where the falling angel meets the rising ape.
Susan: With tooth fairies? Hogfathers?
Death: Yes. As practice, you have to start out learning to believe the little lies.
Susan: So we can believe the big ones?
Death: Yes. Justice, mercy, duty. That sort of thing.
Susan: They're not the same at all.
Death: You think so? Then take the universe and grind it down to the finest powder, and sieve it through the finest sieve, and then show me one atom of justice, one molecule of mercy. And yet, you try to act as if there is some ideal order in the world. As if there is some rightness in the universe by which it may be judged.
- Terry Pratchett's Hogfather

That's where I parted company with the rest of the species. My earliest memory of Santa Clause was the day my sister (two years younger than me) found a tooth that had allegedly been taken by the tooth fairy. I could see the geers turning in her mind, connecting it to the Easter Bunny and Santa. When I told my mother, she said that she was sad about it. I spent years trying to figure out why she would be sad that her child had developed a brain.

Santa is not a fantasy. It is a lie and a national conspiracy, that goes deeper than most people realize. No, I did not lie to my children about Santa.

There's a big difference between a fantasy or an analogy or an ideal vs superstition. An analogy is a tool that can help you to make sense of the world. If it doesn't apply, you can toss it back in the tool box. Superstition is a tool that others can use to control you, or you can use to trick yourself. The Bible and other religious writings, as literature, have a lot of useful stories and ideas, as long as you don't take them too seriously.

I would be interested in having you expand on this statement...perhaps in the santa thread though.

You've been mercilessly butchering both logic and semantics since you started this thread, Magnus. Then again...that kind of behavior makes you....um...an archetypical theist/deist....

Unfortunately or otherwise, repetition is the scaffolding on which we construct new ideas in PPR.

That would be unfortunate. If this forum gets much less diverse, it'll consist of *nothing* but talk about how religious people are sheeple, which is about as intellectually stimulating as kicking a rock down a street (no offense to any rock kickers out there).