Ant wrote:And I personally seriously question the possibility of any afterlife.

Well well well..... That is interesting...

Ant wrote:I've organized and lead grief groups hosted by large national hospitals.

Also interesting. I assume you did not let anyone in on your doubts? Not attacking, just asking about your approach.

Thinking 'bout this a bit more, I recall a thread you started a while back attacking atheism specifically because it provided no comfort to those on their deathbed. I thought it was a peculiar argument, but understand it better now knowing you're involved with grief counseling. But also now here are your own serious doubts about an afterlife. So it seems you may be very well suited to answer your own line of attack.

Geo -

My impression is that the main function of belief in an afterlife is the consolation of seeing the loved ones again. Parents even make claims about pets being in heaven to console their children that way. As ant points out, it doesn't negate the grief, and in my opinion it functions to assuage some of the grief. After all, if your parents left you and someone told you that you would see them again in 40 years, there would still be a shock to adjust to and grief to work through.

I know that some preaching works that vein to get people to celebrate being one of the saved. Sociologically, that is not too bad. Theologically, it is awful. The great texts about the afterlife in the NT have the ones who get the good treatment (e.g. the bosom of Abraham) be surprised by it. "Lord, when did we see you hungry?" etc. The surprise is evidently a major part of the doctrine, but entirely missing from modern come-to-Jesus evangelicalism.

By an interesting coincidence, I was re-reading a chapter (9) in Haidt's The Happiness Hypothesis, where he talks about the "vertical dimension" of divinity that is of course a huge aspect of religion, but is also omnipresent in daily life within traditional societies (meaning religious ones). The concept of fallen nature goes right along with the notion that when we act morally and follow the rules established by the religion, we maintain our height of divinity, we become more godly. When we do not strive to be more godly, we descend to the level of the beasts. There is a frank anti-animalism in religion, wherein the degraded side of us is equated to our lower animal, or fallen, nature. There could be a practical reason for instilling this prejudice in us, which is that when humans let our animal natures run wild, we can do a lot more damage than (other) animals can by exercising their own animal natures.

Haidt himself tells of his three months in India in his 20s. It was disorienting for him to have to be conscious of a whole raft of purity and non-contamination rules, which are in place to keep space between the divine and the profane. He was used to the very "flat" society he had come from, a secular one in which the horizontal dimension of closeness and autonomy is really the only one he needed to pay attention to. When he returned from India, though, he found himself wanting to retain a few of the means of separation he experienced in India, such as removing his shoes when entering his apartment. He had also come away with a new respect for religion-based social customs of purity that he had previously considered neurotic. He now realized that morality was a larger thing, including the notions of purity and contamination, than he had thought.

Dwill wrote:The concept of fallen nature goes right along with the notion that when we act morally and follow the rules established by the religion, we maintain our height of divinity, we become more godly. When we do not strive to be more godly, we descend to the level of the beasts.

This is what I was getting at. This struggle to maintain a height of divinity is a struggle that was forced upon mankind by the poor decision of adam and eve. So in a sense, the struggle itself is due to the actions of others. It's like being forced to climb the stairs 10 stories because Jimbob broke the elevator. When you start huffing and puffing because you're out of breath, it's only human to place some of that blame on Jimbob. Not all, but some.

The struggle can also be understood in purely naturalistic terms. Because there is a struggle, it's very real. We seek to override our baser natures using reason. To resist our urges for the sake of what's good for us. To walk past the donut and buy the salad, to leave your interaction with a pretty woman at nothing more than a smile due to how attractive she is. I think it's healthier to see the truth behind these urges. The desires that have been evolved into us to help us survive, but no longer apply in the modern world, where our tribe is the whole of the earth.

I'm not in a position to compare how it feels to blame a blind force vs an ancestor. But with the blind force, the blame seems to bounce back to me. I'm in charge of whether or not I can overcome my base nature. If I fail at this task, it is utterly my fault. We all have this struggle, and only when we try to overcome these urges as a species can we flourish.

DWill wrote:By an interesting coincidence, I was re-reading a chapter (9) in Haidt's The Happiness Hypothesis, where he talks about the "vertical dimension" of divinity that is of course a huge aspect of religion, but is also omnipresent in daily life within traditional societies (meaning religious ones). The concept of fallen nature goes right along with the notion that when we act morally and follow the rules established by the religion, we maintain our height of divinity, we become more godly. When we do not strive to be more godly, we descend to the level of the beasts. There is a frank anti-animalism in religion, wherein the degraded side of us is equated to our lower animal, or fallen, nature. There could be a practical reason for instilling this prejudice in us, which is that when humans let our animal natures run wild, we can do a lot more damage than (other) animals can by exercising their own animal natures.

This is very interesting. But in ancient religions, purity had some rather displeasing dimensions: women as impure, phallic glorification of the excellent, imposition of interbreeding restrictions against "inferior" conquered people, etc. My impulse is still to consider the whole vertical dimension neurotic, right up to the "mountain-top" view that we consider more godly. The sublime is a mistake, more or less. As with many of Haidt's insights, I will have to give this more thought, since even what you present of it here has some intriguing aspects I had not considered.

DWill wrote: He had also come away with a new respect for religion-based social customs of purity that he had previously considered neurotic. He now realized that morality was a larger thing, including the notions of purity and contamination, than he had thought.

This is the first time I have been able to think of purity/contamination as properly religious rather than just mistaken superstition which persists because it works practically for reasons not understood by the practitioners. I have in my own experience times when deliberately refraining from "animal perspective", e.g. fasting, incorporates elements of the divine. But I am not sure it works the way the original purity rules envision the process. It seems to me the element of choice is the only transcendent dimension to the whole business of asceticism or refraining from contamination.

Interbane wrote: This is what I was getting at. This struggle to maintain a height of divinity is a struggle that was forced upon mankind by the poor decision of adam and eve. So in a sense, the struggle itself is due to the actions of others. It's like being forced to climb the stairs 10 stories because Jimbob broke the elevator. When you start huffing and puffing because you're out of breath, it's only human to place some of that blame on Jimbob. Not all, but some.

I suppose that blaming Jimbob or Adam (but usually it's Eve) has a function of getting the sinner back in the fold more easily, precisely because it's possible to say that he or she fell prey to what we all could fall prey to. It's still "our" fault, but since the fault is so widely shared, it's easier to mitigate the offense. That can be okay, I guess--better than a person being outcast permanently.

The struggle can also be understood in purely naturalistic terms. Because there is a struggle, it's very real. We seek to override our baser natures using reason. To resist our urges for the sake of what's good for us. To walk past the donut and buy the salad, to leave your interaction with a pretty woman at nothing more than a smile due to how attractive she is. I think it's healthier to see the truth behind these urges. The desires that have been evolved into us to help us survive, but no longer apply in the modern world, where our tribe is the whole of the earth.

Religion involves codifying of decisions such as the ones you mention, assuring that there will be less variation from the desired norm and relieving the person from too many tricky choices. It probably "works," but can so become totalitarian. It also isn't an approach that's in keeping with individualism or democracy, which is why I'd go out on a limb and say that our own religious fundamentalists integrate fairly well with society at large. They're still committed to individualism and a democratic system, even though they have their own cultural sideshow going on.

I'm not in a position to compare how it feels to blame a blind force vs an ancestor. But with the blind force, the blame seems to bounce back to me. I'm in charge of whether or not I can overcome my base nature. If I fail at this task, it is utterly my fault. We all have this struggle, and only when we try to overcome these urges as a species can we flourish.

I can see that with the way you or I would look at this, we'd shoulder a greater burden for our mistakes. If we say we're all for personal responsibility, then that's the way it ought to be. But we also could take a harder hit to our mental health. Josh Duggar would seem to have the blow more cushioned by the attitudes of those closest to him. Whether that's a good thing depends on whether he learns anything, "learning" meaning here a change in behavior. I'm thinking now not of his fondling of his sisters some years ago, but of the Ashley Madison thing.

Harry Marks wrote: This is very interesting. But in ancient religions, purity had some rather displeasing dimensions: women as impure, phallic glorification of the excellent, imposition of interbreeding restrictions against "inferior" conquered people, etc. My impulse is still to consider the whole vertical dimension neurotic, right up to the "mountain-top" view that we consider more godly. The sublime is a mistake, more or less. As with many of Haidt's insights, I will have to give this more thought, since even what you present of it here has some intriguing aspects I had not considered.

Haidt's approach to morality is descriptive and scientific, though his POV does play a large part I'm sure. With the purity and divinity foundations (as he calls them), he's only trying to expand the boundaries of morality for us WEIRD people, to get us to acknowledge that for a majority of people in the world there is more to moralize than just autonomy and avoidance of harm. He saw how this works in India, but I don't see him as endorsing all these strictures, probably because as you say, many of them consign women and lower classes to the bottom of the hierarchy. But they do have moral functions for the culture; they're not just ancient taboos followed completely out of unthinking tradition.

Haidt's central point for us Westerners is that, deny this vertical axis of divinity as we might, we all seek ways to work a sense of elevation into our lives, which is what divinity essentially is, he tells us. He believes that this is harder to achieve in our "desacrilized" culture but suggests that such phenomena as New age spiritualism and "cyrpto-religious" interest in food, historical figures like Thomas Jefferson, and nature are evidences of the deep need for divinity.

This is the first time I have been able to think of purity/contamination as properly religious rather than just mistaken superstition which persists because it works practically for reasons not understood by the practitioners. I have in my own experience times when deliberately refraining from "animal perspective", e.g. fasting, incorporates elements of the divine. But I am not sure it works the way the original purity rules envision the process. It seems to me the element of choice is the only transcendent dimension to the whole business of asceticism or refraining from contamination.

I suppose that what is transcendent might differ across individuals. Our culture does place a big emphasis on individualism and choice, though, whereas others don't so much. The aspect of following a tradition that I may not be able to understand well is the reverence that comes from plugging into something that has existed for thousands of years. There could be awe in that, not the robotic obedience that I might have supposed.

Interbane wrote:bad deeds themselves are blamed on the fallen nature of man.

There are a range of views about what the fall means.

My understanding of the idea of the fall is that it is premised on the suggestion that humanity once lived in a state of grace, meaning that culture was in tune with nature, and existing social systems were stable and sustainable. However, people developed new ideas that destroyed the old stable sustainable systems, establishing new cultural norms that were alienated from the state of grace. The concept of fall interprets this shift as the emergence of the state of corruption.

Plants and animals exist in a state of grace because they act according to their natural instinctive purpose. Only humans, because of the ability of our intelligence to warp our actions and motives, can be said to be corrupt. So it is not right, as DWill suggested, to take a simplistic version of the spirit/nature split and argue spirit is full of grace while nature is full of corruption. Sin and the fall are about a corrupted spirit, perverted by wrong ideas to produce destruction and suffering.

Interbane wrote: guilt seems to be like mercury; it builds up over a lifetime and never diminishes.

No, that is not true. Guilt can be dissolved by repentance, mercy and forgiveness. Guilt is a psychological condition, like a worm eating your soul. My view is that if a person truly and fully understands that what they did is wrong and why, and is therefore truly sorry, they open themselves to being forgiven and to repairing the broken relationships and trauma and suffering caused by the transgression. However, too often a guilty party does not care about the effects of their action, remaining unrepentant at heart, denying the humanity of the victim of their action. I consider such attitudes unforgivable.

Robert Tulip wrote: There are a range of views about what the fall means.

My understanding of the idea of the fall is that it is premised on the suggestion that humanity once lived in a state of grace, meaning that culture was in tune with nature, and existing social systems were stable and sustainable. However, people developed new ideas that destroyed the old stable sustainable systems, establishing new cultural norms that were alienated from the state of grace. The concept of fall interprets this shift as the emergence of the state of corruption.

Plants and animals exist in a state of grace because they act according to their natural instinctive purpose. Only humans, because of the ability of our intelligence to warp our actions and motives, can be said to be corrupt.

Robert, I think this is a good interpretation of the deep source of the mythos, and tells us much about how we should think about its function. One variation on this interpretation has it that a hunter/gatherer society operated in a state of grace, (or was perceived to so operate, by more civilized observers) and the change brought by settled agriculture brought concepts of rules and obedience which the farmers thought of as bringing guilt.

I was reminded to think about this when I learned that the Indo-Europeans, who conquered the great river valleys of India, for example, had a much higher rate of population growth than their predecessors, because cultivation of grain allowed them to wean infants at a much younger age and thus the suppression of fertility brought by lactation was drastically shortened. Women became agents of imperialism, in a sense, and were ruled over by men in a more serious and probably violent way than what is typically found among hunter-gatherers. We also know that agriculture brings property, because nomads are limited to own what they can carry (or herd).

Robert Tulip wrote: So it is not right, as DWill suggested, to take a simplistic version of the spirit/nature split and argue spirit is full of grace while nature is full of corruption. Sin and the fall are about a corrupted spirit, perverted by wrong ideas to produce destruction and suffering.

I agree that it is innocent vs. corrupted spirit which is addressed in the myth, but one must go carefully. The instrument of corruption is not disobedience per se, it is eating of the fruit of the tree of knowledge. Having a conscience at all opens the door to having a corrupt relationship with one's conscience. Animals cannot, in essence, reflect on their choices based on abstract criteria, and thus cannot be thought of as "choosing" to be disobedient. One cannot imagine a dog, hiding due to its guilt over chewing the forbidden slipper, thinking "you must put me outside, before I do it again."

So for me this is still a matter of wrestling with one's "animal nature" even if it is not mostly about a spirit/nature split.

Robert Tulip wrote:

Interbane wrote: guilt seems to be like mercury; it builds up over a lifetime and never diminishes.

No, that is not true. Guilt can be dissolved by repentance, mercy and forgiveness. Guilt is a psychological condition, like a worm eating your soul. My view is that if a person truly and fully understands that what they did is wrong and why, and is therefore truly sorry, they open themselves to being forgiven and to repairing the broken relationships and trauma and suffering caused by the transgression.

This is a great insight contributed by the Judeo-Christian tradition. I think you may have skipped over a valuable insight, in the toxic buildup of guilt, in emphasizing its capacity to be removed. Yes, the psychological burden we call guilt can be cleared away. This happens by repentance and forgiveness, which also relieves the social condition of being guilty. But if we do not repent, we will suffer an inexorable increase in the distortion of our self-concept, knowing ourselves more and more clearly to be guilty even if we use ego-defense mechanisms to fend off some of the toxicity.

It is one of the interesting ways that human well-being is interdependent - we care what others think of us, and if we know that others think we have chosen to do wrong, it is difficult to avoid feeling bad about ourselves as a consequence.

Robert wrote:No, that is not true. Guilt can be dissolved by repentance, mercy and forgiveness.

You're right, guilt can be lessened. I still feel traces of guilt for things I've done that I've done penance for, taken responsibility for, and have been forgiven for. Replaying the act in my mind makes it fresh, no matter the penance or forgiveness. I think it would be the same for everyone, regardless of belief. What diminishes this is the thought that immediately follows, what we use to absolve the emotion. "Oh, they forgave me", or "I fessed up and paid the price". Whatever your train of thought is as the time seems to move on to other matters when you consider the resolution. Only when guilt is unresolved do you dwell on it, making it feel as if it's more potent.

I'd also say that a repeat of the same crime resurrects guilt to it's former glory. The train of thought is hijacked, and you're no longer able to move on from guilty memories when they surface. "Oh, they forgave me", but then "I did it again!!!". The guilt returns with a vengeance. This corrupts your self-perception if you live with it enough. Perhaps for the better. To live without guilt is to be an arrogant can't-do-no-wrong asshole.

I mention the train of thought, because that's how it seems to work, for me at least. It is when the memory is present that you feel the emotion, and the presence of memory has to do with what you're thinking of at the time. It sounds esoteric, but I don't think it is.