We engage together in, and record for broadcast, our earnest philosophical dialogues, so that we may:

  1. Enhance our understanding of life and the world in which we live.
  2. Stimulate intellectual curiosity and philosophical exploration in ourselves and others.
  3. Strengthen our intellectual skills of critical thinking and sound reasoning.
  4. Provide a forum for a diversity of thought from a broad spectrum of independent thinkers.
  5. Connect with and form a network among thoughtful and caring individuals, everywhere.
  6. Enjoy the pleasures of intellectually stimulating and philosophically insightful company.
  7. Promote the pursuit of wisdom in everyone.


Civility - Treat everyone with respect. Use helpful, not hurtful language. Listen carefully and patiently when someone else is speaking.

Sincerity - Honest opinions and innocent questions are more valuable than "scoring points" or "looking smart". Strive for intellectual honesty.

Soundness - Favor sound reasoning over emotional rhetoric or sophomoric obfuscation.

Succinctness - Strive to be brief and to the point using understandable language. Speak loud and clear so others can hear.


Amazon Honor System Click Here to Pay Learn More

Tuesday, September 25, 2007

Why Mysticism?

Mike Grosso has suggested we choose "What is Mysticism?" as the topic of our next Thinking Out Loud dialogue scheduled for Oct 3. Here is Mike's plea:

The Case for a Dialogue on Mysticism - Michael Grosso

I would like us to discuss the topic "What is mysticism?". Here is why. The words mystic, mystical, and mysticism have popular, literary, and technical senses. In popular or journalistic talk the mystical is the mysterious, the vaguely poetical, indeed, the misty. I hope we can come to a clearer understanding of what reality lies behind these words.

In particular, I would like to explore the meaning of mysticism as it relates to certain uniquely extraordinary human experiences, experiences marked by what W. Stace called an overwhelming sense of “undifferentiated unity.”

Why is this important? Several reasons come to mind that we might discuss. The first is religious. All the great religions exhibit some form of mysticism, each via its peculiar cultural and historical perspective. Buddhism and Samkya Yoga are atheistic; the Abrahamic religions are theistic. There are also non-religious forms of nature mysticism, in which the experience is one of union with nature. There are intellectual forms of mysticism and devotional forms that deploy feelings of love and adoration. And there are artists and poets clearly with strong mystical bents like William Blake and Walt Whitman.

By concentrating on the common core of mystical experience, some people see in mysticism a potentially unifying force, a way of tying together all the great religions, and touching our common humanity.

The second point of importance is scientific. The mystical experience is a challenge to modern science. How does it fit into the prevailing cosmology? Has neuroscience anything to say about mysticism? Is there a connection between mysticism and incidences of supernormal phenomena?

Certain drugs (so-called “entheogens”) are said to produce mystical experiences. Does this tell us anything about the mind-body problem?

Mystical experiences are often reported as occurring during near-death experiences. Do these experiences perhaps hold an answer to the riddle of death? Why should people physiologically on the verge of death have such extraordinary experiences?

Finally, perhaps the most important question, from a purely the practical perspective, does mysticism tell us anything about how to live?

**************************************

Thanks, Mike, for your persuasive proposal. As usual, the final decision will be up to the participants who show up for the dialogue.

Anyone who wishes to participate long distance in our live dialogue on Oct 3 please contact me for arrangements (blogmaster+AT+growingagain.com). You will need to have Skype, voice over Internet, software installed. I can help you get Skype set up, if you don't already have it. It's free.

Enjoy.

Monday, September 24, 2007

Transcript of "What is Religion?"

Steve Stokes has done a tremendous job transcribing our last session on "What is Religion?". All the participants have now had their opportunity for review and it is ready to release. You can find a copy here.

Thanks again Steve for your hard work.

Friday, September 21, 2007

What's in a Word?

After our last dialogue on "What is Religion?", one of the participants lamented to me that we never really answered the question. It is true that we did not arrive at a definitive answer and I have two thoughts I would like to share about that.

First, did we fail in our mission? I don't think so. Our mission is not necessarily to arrive at definitive answers to the questions we examine, but rather to increase our understanding of what realities lie behind the words and to stimulate philosophical exploration of those realities. I believe we succeeded on both counts. The value is in the journey whether or not we arrive at the final destination.

The second point is that there may not be a final destination at all, at least not as far as language is concerned. Words acquire meaning through their usage and we use words to convey our understanding. Where our understanding is unclear our language will be ill defined. A word like "religion" does not have one definitive meaning but a multitude of meanings that vary with the speaker and the context. So how do we work around this limitation of language? One way is to use a kind of triangulation. It has been said that if you look at a hundred different portraits painted by the same artist, what you have is a portrait of the artist. To get a true portrait of someone else, you need a hundred portraits painted by a hundred different artists. Likewise, I believe, if we examine a multitude of related words and concepts and ask what they mean to a multitude of individuals, we can begin to see a portrait of reality not readily apparent from any single word or speaker. This is in part what I hope to accomplish with our Thinking Out Loud series.

Here are some short answers to, "What is religion?" as "painted" by the citizen philosophers in our last session, with whom you may or may not agree:
  1. Religion is the antithesis of philosophy.
  2. Religion is an experience.
  3. Religion is a way of life.
  4. Religion is a story.
  5. Religion is an institution.
  6. Religion is a group identity.
Do you have any short answers you would like to contribute to the emerging portrait? Feel free to add your comments by clicking on the "comments" link below.

Tuesday, September 11, 2007

The Power of Religion

And here is a contribution from Mike Grosso, also in response to our discussion on religion. As with Steve Stokes' piece below, the following represents the views of the individual contributor, not the views of the discussion group as a whole. You are invited to comment on Mike's essay by clicking on the "comment" link at the bottom of this post.

The Power of Religion - A Mystery?
by Michael Grosso

Future historians will have much to say about the resurgence of religion that began in the last third of the twentieth century. As Mark Lilla recently explained in the New York Times Magazine (August 19, 2007), the great thinkers of the eighteenth century completely underestimated the power of religion. Many imagined that religion would die out as science progressed, just as Marx imagined the State would wither away with the rise of proletarian justice.

They were wrong. The facts of subsequent history converge toward the idea that religion is an indestructible force. In spite of science destroying religious mythology, there is no decline, no wavering – but rather, steady and massive resurgence of religious belief. The contradictions between science and religion – and surely they exist – are blithely passed over. Religious believers listen to a different drummer.

Science has not done religion in -- neither has political repression when it tried. It was a kind of experiment when the regimes of two great countries in the twentieth century controlled, repressed, and tried systematically to eradicate religion from the consciousness of their peoples. Soviet Russia was able to pursue this experiment for seventy years, and China has also been at it for decades. These attempts to eradicate religion have failed miserably. As soon as the Soviet power block broke up, there was a rebirth of religious sentiment everywhere and it took many shapes. Some flocked back to the Orthodox Church, others went their ways with new gods, cults, movements. Ditto for China, which, as it slides from communism into a market economy, is also brimming over with religious ferment.

Meanwhile, the young everywhere are returning to the churches and mosques, some switching from the old and trying new faiths. Leading among religions whose populations are swelling the ranks of believers are of course Islam and Christianity. So, although Americans are reading books by some brilliant atheists, it represents a tiny blip of revolt against the onward drift of religious belief.

The evidence of the lively, hydra-headed power of religion should prompt us to ask, Why is religion so powerful? If science, political oppression, and consumerism have failed to extinguish religion, what is the nature of its resilience? Are we humans driven by an instinct, an impetus toward transcendence? Is there some compelling mystery in consciousness we have yet to appreciate? Or are we hopelessly addicted to comforting illusions? These are psychological and metaphysical questions.

But the runaway fertility of religious belief also poses ethical problems. For example, mutual respect for each other’s belief systems becomes more important than ever, a practical necessity in a world teeming with religious diversity. Believers and disbelievers will have to live together. As for the impending clash of civilizations, there is a long range challenge we have to face, a choice humanity as a whole will have to make: either cultivate the garden of toleration or stoke the hell fires of fanaticism.

Monday, September 10, 2007

Practicing Safe Religion

Here is a contribution I received from Steve Stokes relating to our most recent dialogue on "What is religion?". Please note that the following does not necessarily represent the views of anyone in our discussion, except for the contributor, Steve Stokes:

12 Changes to Make Religions Safer
by Steve Stokes

  1. Remove all provisions that the Deity(s) and Its theology is the "one true god and religion". Granted that this provision is the foundation of the orthodoxy of all major established religions, but in light of the untold carnage and suffering that this one piece of dogma is responsible for, it really is irresponsible to sanction this delusion.

  2. Remove all provisions that conclude that there are certain classifications of people that are some kind of abomination to the Deity(s) and ought to be exterminated. (Non-believers, witches, heretics, adulterers, fornicators, homosexuals, a defeated enemy, "sinners", the unclean, etc., and/or the descendants of the above.) Such provisions have undisputedly been responsible for untold carnage and suffering.

  3. And while we are on the subject, there must be eliminated all provisions for the sacrifices of innocent humans. Historically it has not been necessary to be offensive to a deity in order for a religion to sanction one's death. Ironically, the fact that you are pure or innocent could be the very reason for your life to be taken. It goes without saying that these provisions too are responsible for untold carnage and suffering.

  4. It seems that one of the best things that religion has promoted, THE NOT TAKING OF HUMAN LIFE, needs to be amplified. And also in need of amplification is the instruction, DO NOT DO TO ANOTHER THAT WHICH YOU WOULD NOT WANT DONE TO YOURSELF. If only followers of the worlds religions would pay heed to these two tenets of their dogma, the world would be a infinitely safer. Strangely however, these universal precepts, found in all the world's major religions, are widely ignored. This change alone could prevent much carnage and suffering.

  5. Recognize that the holding of a religious belief is a personal life choice. As such, religious beliefs should never be imposed on others. Theocratic governments, laws against blasphemy, heresy, other sundry blue laws, "justice" systems based on divine intervention, (trial by ordeal, trial by combat), mandatory public religious observance, proselytizing in public or door-to-door, even silly little fish on the back of cars, obnoxious T-shirts, and tacky WWJD bracelets. And while not responsible for carnage, as such, the imposition of religion unto others is cause for untold suffering.

  6. Because the dangers below represent danger only to the individual and those in their custody, they constitute a second class of danger and so are listed separately as dangers that should be eliminated from a religion to make it safer.

  7. Remove self-depreciating pronouncements against humanity. I.e., humans are not sinful, humans are not unworthy, humans are not sheep, and we don't need to be shepherded.

  8. Do not encourage the belief in divine intervention. One can't be rescued from a calamity by a deity that does not exist.

  9. Take out any prohibitions of medical procedures. Also remove any provisions against organ donation.

  10. Take out any provision for cloistered existence. What a waste of existence: living behind a wall.

  11. Eliminate examples of sloppy thinking. I.e., young Earth references, simplistic creation myths, all the animals of the world being loaded onto one vessel, the sun being stopped in its tracks for a day, etc., etc.

  12. Take out any provisions against free thought. Any dogma that can't hold it own against logical critical thought can't be very sound.

  13. Capricious prohibitions should be eliminated: food, dress, music, dance, etc. In order to advance the human condition, a religion should be significant, and not bogged down with the superficial.

You are welcome to comment on Steve's list and on our dialogue. Just click on the "comments" link below.

Sunday, September 09, 2007

What Is Religion?

The latest Thinking Out Loud podcast has been released on iTunes. The session was recorded last Wednesday, Sept 5, and the topic was "What is religion?" Thank you Billie, George, John, Mike, and our cyber participant, Steve Stokes from Atlanta, GA, for a great discussion. Although Skypecast broadcasting is still down, I am pleased that we were able to include Steve using a regular Skype Internet phone connection. The sound quality was excellent, as was the content of our discussion. Here are some highlights:

Is religion the antithesis of philosophy? What do they have in common? How are they different? What are the origins of religion? What is the "religious experience"? How do interpretation, doctrine, and dogma enter into religion? Does man's search for meaning inevitably lead to religion? How does religion provide meaning? What is the role of the church and its hierarchy of priests? What are the dangers of religion? Where is the line between religious instruction and involuntary indoctrination? How is spirituality different from religion? What is the role of religion in community formation and maintenance? What can science and philosophy learn from religion? Can religions evolve? Is it still possible for altogether new world religions to come into being? Can a synthesis emerge out of the collision of science, philosophy, and conflicting world religions? What could art, literature, and poetry add to such a synthesis?

Steve Stokes has generously volunteered to create a transcript from our recording. I will post it on this blog once it is ready. Thanks, Steve, for your courageous undertaking. A written transcript will be another powerful medium with which we can examine and disseminate what pearls of collective wisdom we managed to scatter throughout our discussion.

Our podcasts have been reaching an audience. We have been consistently within the top 20 on iTunes in the Philosophy category. Here are the numbers on the 4 most popular of our episodes downloaded in August:

640 downloads: The Nature of Addiction
172 downloads: What is Love?
132 downloads: America's Democracy
127 downloads: Free Will

To subscribe to the podcast with your podcast software (such as iTunes or iPodder) copy and past the following link into your software:

www.citizenphilosopher.com/rss/tol_podcasts.xml

If you have iTunes, you can find us listed in the Apple Music Store directory under Podcasts/Society & Culture/Philosophy, or just do a search in iTunes on Thinking Out Loud People. The direct iTunes link is:

phobos.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewPodcast?id=214321935

If you don't have iTunes or other podcast software and just want to download the mp3 file directly, use this link:

Listen to the broadcast (mp3)

You are invited to add your thoughts by clicking on the "comments" link at the lower right hand corner of this post.

The next Thinking Out Loud will be Wednesday, October 3, at 7:00 pm. Mike suggested we continue to expand along the theme of religion, having laid down a good introduction to the general topic in the last session. The tentative topic for the next session is "What is mysticism?". Other religion related topics we could consider at some point are:

1. Religion and personal identity
2. Religion, morality and taboos
3. Religion and politics

The final decision will be up to those who show up for the session. If we can come to a consensus beforehand, we can save time at the beginning of the session and we will have the benefit of some forethought on the topic. So if you prefer a topic other than "What is mysticism?" or wish to refine the question, now is the time to make your case. Everyone is encouraged to lobby for their favorite topic. If there is not a clear consensus, we will vote at the beginning of the next session. If there is a consensus, so much the better.

Cheers,

Steve

Monday, September 03, 2007

Lobbying for question #2

I received the following plea from Mike Grosso arguing in favor of choosing a topic in advance, and in particular, choosing the topic "What is Religion?". I know of at least one other participant who favors that choice of topic as well. If you have strong feelings one way or the other, I encourage you to email me your thoughts. In fairness to all the participants, I will postpone the final decision until we are all gathered on Wednesday. However, please feel free to make your case for your favorite topic ahead of time, as Mike has done. If you make a persuasive enough case, you may succeed in precipitating a consensus in advance of the meeting, in which case, confirming our choice at the beginning of the meeting can be handled very expeditiously.

On 9/3/2007 at 1:14 AM Michael Grosso wrote:
Thanks for this, Steve -- and here are a few thoughts about a possible topic for discussion. Again, put me down for the idea of knowing the topic in advance; that gives us time to think about the subject -- and isn't the idea to increase thought? Become more mindful? More reflective? That presupposes duration, dwelling with an idea over time.

I think the question, What is religion? would be great to discuss. Some people may have seen Christiane Amanpour's three part special on God's Warriors on CNN. The thing we have to face about religion today is that it is the most dangerous weapon of mass destruction around. This of course results when we mix politics and religion. And it's not just Islamic fundamentalism we have to worry about. Christian messianism and exceptionalism is and has served as a covert weapon of mass destruction in American history. And in general the Jews seem to mixed God and history up in ways that the Greek philosopher theologians (especially Epicurus and Xenophanes) would deplore.

But what does all this have to do with religion in general? It's probably unwise to get too fixated on an exact definition of religion. But I would suggest making a few preliminary distinctions. We could do worse than a tentative definition of religion as a system of salvation, but should hasten to add that different systems may be broken down into three things: experiences (induced and spontaneous); rituals and ceremonies; and doctrines, beliefs, and interpretations. The real mischief of religion arises from the latter -- the beliefs and interpretations, the dogmas and apocalyptic mania. The experiences are something else, and need to be sharply distinguished from the other two aspects of religion.

In general, I think the more people reflect and think critically about religion, the better. It's not belief (even absurd ones) that's the problem, but the manner in which organized groups of religionists entertain their beliefs. The only antidote to this poison is the lucid balm of philosophy.

Michael Grosso

Sunday, September 02, 2007

Live Dialogue Wednesday Sept 5

Our next gathering is scheduled for this Wednesday, September 5, at 7:00 pm ET. Suggested topics so far are:

1. What are emotions?
2. What is religion?
3. How are we best educated?
4. What matters?

If you would like to participate long distance in the live discussion, please let me know ahead of time by email. Write to blogmaster+AT+growingagain.com (replace +AT+ with @ to help protect me against spammers) The Skypecast feature is still down, so if you wish to participate, I will need to manually add you to a Skype conference call. I will be glad to do so, but you need to have Skype installed (available free at www.skype.com) and email me your Skype ID. Hope you can make it.

If you miss the live discussion, you will be able to listen to it later as a podcast on iTunes when it is released a few days later.

Enjoy.