You probably have twigged to the fact that I am a philosophy buff, although I could claim to be a philosopher in that historical that simply meant anyone who studies philosophy, but I don’t. I read philosophical works almost constantly.
Recently I have been made aware of a cadre of serious philosophers who claim that atheists, like me, live only partial lives because we lack the numinous or transcendent aspects that religious worship provides.
numinous: : supernatural, mysterious. 2. : filled with a sense of the presence of divinity : holy. 3. : appealing to the higher emotions or to the aesthetic sense : spiritual. (Thanks Merriam-Webster)
transcendent: 1. : superior to or going beyond the usual : extraordinary. 2. : going beyond the limits of ordinary experience. (Again Merriam-Webster)
They argue that humans around the world feel the feelings they associate with divinity, the supernatural, etc. so the need those things fulfill must be significant.
Really?
I suggest that people all over the world frequently feel the need to take a shit, so is that super special too? Oh, that is ordinary. But if all people around the world fill some need as claimed, is that not ordinary, too?
And how transcendent can such things be if the need is fulfilled by imaginary entities? There are currently over 3000 gods being “worshipped” on Earth and at least 4000+ over human history. There are myriad religions. In the case of Christianity over 40,000 sects, or denominations if you will, have been characterized, each claiming to be unique, not like the others, and in effect superior to the others. (Note—the correct term is sect but many people think that term is negative when it is, in fact, neutral and denomination is just a name or designation like a name, i.e. a named thing: from Latin dēnōminātiōn- (stem of dēnōminātiō “calling something by other than its proper name, substitution, metonymy,” equivalent to dēnōmināt(us) + -iōn-; denominate, -ion).)
Now, “going beyond the limits of ordinary experience” . . . imagination . . . hmm. What is imagination but a mental ability to . . . wait for it . . . go beyond the limits of ordinary experience. So, imagining gods, pixies, sprites, cherubs, angels, gods, etc. seems like just manifestations of imagination and nothing real.
And imagining is not just a rational exercise. We can imagine up emotional reactions, too. We can imagine the terror of being bombed from the skies, or catching a deadly fever, or being bitten by a poisonous snake or the terror of having a heart attack with no medical help nearby, or . . . I think you get the idea. (Many very well-to-do Americans are terrified of dying, for example, which of course has to be imagined because no one alive has experienced it (in toto, anyway).)
The whole benefit of imagination to our species is we don’t have to try out every hair-brained idea that comes to mind to figure out if it is viable, e.g. “If I run and jump off of this cliff I will be able to fly!” Running this scenario in your imagination results in your body in a broken heap at the bottom of the cliff, so . . . bad idea.
So, are we capable of imagining “appealing to the higher emotions or to the aesthetic sense.” And then imagining that feeling coming from a deity who loves and protects us? Easy peasy, I think. As I have argued before all of this is supported by the very human need to feel “special,” all evidence from the Church Lady to the contrary.
“Now, isn’t that special!”
And how important can the need for transcendence in our lives be if the need is easily fulfilled by imaginary entities? Are we not just worshipping our imaginations and the imaginings of others?
And, trust me, I have a cartoon mind. I am not missing out on transcendent thoughts. As to “numinous,” this word is an expression of an industry, the religious industry, which sells worship, gods, afterlives, for the low, low cost of . . . ten percent of your income, your time, effort, obedience, etc. This is a made up word describing a sense also made up, all with a sales pitch in mind.
I used to love sojourns into the Sierra Nevada mountains. Once alone I always felt small, but part of something very large, called nature. That I had a place in nature. I could be food for a hungry mountain lion, or pick up some seeds in my boots and carry them to places where they can geminate and thrive.
I wonder how many philosophers were raised with no religious indoctrination, indoctrinations which told them how and what to feel, how to act, etc. Part of the manipulation involved music, especially communal singing. All jokes regarding the quality of singing congregations aside, communal singing is a powerful bonding exercise for any group, as is communal chanting, a practice around the world of religious acolytes. Just the communal activities undertaken with members of a “special” group (you were told it was special by your parents, so it had to be, no?) results in bonding to the group. Members of religious groups are often forbidden from attending religious services of other groups, or any activities of those other groups, because everybody’s bonding techniques are roughly the same. The differences between the new experience and the old ordinary one in your own church may make the “new” seem superior.
While these philosophers can argue, they really have no ammunition in their guns to fight out disagreements, because we are talking about the realm of the imagination and it possesses no bounds.
They also tend to roll out the tired old “meaning of life tropes.” No one has yet established that life has any meaning outside of what individuals create for themselves, nor do they establish how it is that religions have any better perspective on such questions than, for example, philosophy. (Maybe, “I was having a beer with God the other night and He told me. . . .) Philosophy was created around hashing out such questions and philosophy has never satisfactorily answered any of these so-called “big questions,” so why do they think imaginary religions can?
Why Isn’t Populism Popular?
Tags: class warfare, Republicans, corruption, conservatives, tax the rich, obscene wealth, hypocrisy, Corporate Greed
In my youth and political naïveté I often wondered why populism wasn’t what all Americans wanted. Didn’t we want “government of the people, by the people, and for the people?” Fast forward to today and we are being warned daily about the dangers of populism, and the words populism and populist seem to be used as slurs.
So, off to my go-to dictionary, Merriam-Webster I go:
Definition 1 is spot on with my original thinking, and definition 2 is also, but that’s not all there is.
Another definition is:
this too is spot-on, and
Finally, here is why the powers that be, on the left and right (actually “above” as left and right don’t really exist anymore, having been co-opted by the oligarchs) are opposed to populism. Although one could claim that the oligarchs are in favor of tax cuts and higher wages, for the rich, but the assumption here is “for ordinary people” so since such things reduce profits and thus the salaries and stock earnings of rich people, they’re agin’ it. We are supposed to be creating government structures “of the people, by the people, and for the people” but the rich are opposed to this quaint idea. They consider “the non-rich” to be “the filthy poor” who just can’t wait to get their hands on the money the rich people have piled up by hook or crook, so it is unthinkable that “those people” would be in charge. (This is why Franklin Roosevelt was declared to be a traitor to his class. He did way too much for ordinary people (even supported labor unions, eww!), at least according to the oligarchs.) Their idea is government of the non-rich by the elites (the rich and those chosen to represent them, e.g. paid for politicians).
One of their tried and true tactics is to demean the things that they want their followers to hate. They turned the term “liberal” into a slur. Social Security and even the Post Office became socialism. Church-state separation became a war on Christianity and now populism is a dirty word. The message underlying all of this is “you don’t want this, move along.” Apparently they think it is a Jedi mind trick.
What started me off on this post was a single sentence (I don’t have triggers so much as short fuses): “Populists always say popular things, so judge the man for what he’s done not for what he says.” WTF? Only populists tell us what we want to hear? Apparently they were thinking of politicians, not just populists.