Atheists, your thoughts on this quote?

Roloro's answer makes me think.

I do indeed look at nature in awe, but not as if it is higher than me. I, myself, am one of its products. After all, I am 'made of star stuff,' and 'a way for the cosmos to know itself.' I stand in awe that nature has a logic so complex that it would appear as chaos upon first glance. I do look out at nature and see a great mystery, but again this is where I differ. I believe, always have believed that mysteries exist to be solved (this is also one reason why my religious upbringing never sat well with me). I do not sit idly by gazing upon something I deem greater than myself; I look at the mystery of the world and see a glorious challenge. It is a challenge worth living for. Have you ever solved a complex logical problem? Have you ever snooped around and discovered or figured out the natural workings and mechanics of something? Those times when, while doing something completely unrelated, you put the pieces together of something you've seen before and it suddenly clicked as you saw that the puzzle was solved? Did you feel the wonderful, amazing joy and experience the bout of giddiness I did?

I think that joy is a symptom of the self-esteem spoken of here. That feeling of "yes, I did that" when you look at something, whether as an idea or as a physical manifestation. This is why the quote above rings with me.

"Man’s need of self-esteem entails the need for a sense of control over reality—but no control is possible in a universe which, by one’s own concession, contains the supernatural, the miraculous and the causeless, a universe in which one is at the mercy of ghosts and demons, in which one must deal, not with the unknown, but with the unknowable; no control is possible if man proposes, but a ghost disposes; no control is possible if the universe is a haunted house. His life and self-esteem require that the object and concern of man’s consciousness be reality and this earth

>>Here is where I get off Any Rand's boat. While I sympathize with the view, the logic troubles me. If one rejects the supernatural it should be because there is no proof. It should be because the stories have no relevance in our real world struggles. But it should NOT be because acceptance would damage our self esteem. If we dismiss the notion of God it should be because we have no logical reason to keep it, rather than our emotional response to the possibility of His Actuality.<<

—but morality, men are taught, consists of scorning this earth and the world available to sensory perception, and of contemplating, instead, a “different” and “higher” reality, a realm inaccessible to reason and incommunicable in language, but attainable by revelation, by special dialectical processes, by that superior state of intellectual lucidity known to Zen-Buddhists as “No-Mind,” or by death.

>>Even as Rand rejects the 'equality' of Marx, she gets dosed with Karl's misunderstanding of Religion. Morality & Religion are Darwinian in nature. Morality is just the rules to promote Social cohesion. Extensions on the Golden Rule really. And Religion is cheap enforcement. Easier to say 'God is Watching & will judge' than to hire watchers & judges. Hence while the moral code will contain the obligatory 'I am the lord your God' its real significance is the Thou shalt not steal, kill, …etc. all VERY real world & very necessary. Rand seems to think the Spiritual Voodoo is the point, rather than a flavor.<<

His life and self-esteem require that man take pride in his power to think, pride in his power to live—but morality, men are taught, holds pride, and specifically intellectual pride, as the gravest of sins. Virtue begins, men are taught, with humility: with the recognition of the helplessness, the smallness, the impotence of one’s mind."

>>I get it, I do. Religion is a Socializing factor & Rand is trying to pull us back towards the vitality of Individual desire & confidence. I just think she should have a bit more respect for Hubris. Nothing kills the capacity to learn as quickly as the belief you have nothing left to learn. A little humility goes a long way to keeping the mind open & powerful.

Still if we are to err, I think is should be on the side of pride. What a sad thing to walk through life with your head bowed. I think I would rather fail attempting the mighty, than rot in a life of quiet desperation.<<

I agree with your quote to a point :-) I'm an atheist, yes - - I reject the down side of mysticism, yes. But I hope I never lose my sense of awe and wonder at the natural world. I guess I'm one of those strange people that finds it oddly comforting that we don't know and will never know.

For me, this is why zen(no buddhism) works so well- - and now I'm struggling because indeed words don't work. . . In zen I became aware that we only think we know, any sense of control we may have is really just an illusion we maintain to make ourselves feel better, and in the end it makes us feel worse. It takes a lot of energy to maintain an illusion, especially one as big as this!

Life, the universe, the world, everything we can perceive is indeed as the native Americans say, a great mystery, and as they say in zen, that's just the way it is.

So true. With a little bit of humility we might possess more knowledge by now. The real has been mistaken to be what one feels or what one sees. This mistake results when one fails to distinguish between presentation and insight. We will gain insight once we'll operate in the world of common sense, oriented to what must be done: we all should have to submit ourselves to self-scrutiny in order to understand the activities of our subjectivity. It's very difficult for human beings to question themselves. However, a critical control of the activities of intelligence is lacking, and knowledge is luxury. It's when knowledge gets in the wrong hands that 'invents' mythical constructs of the universe throughout centuries.

but no control is possible in a universe which, by one’s own concession, contains the supernatural, the miraculous and the causeless, a universe in which one is at the mercy of ghosts and demons, in which one must deal, not with the unknown, but with the unknowable; The universe doesn't contain the supernatural, the miraculous and the causeless. Just the unknown.

Interesting, but I think it's missing the main point.

I feel the main reason for mysticism is simply a survival instinct, based on measuring intent. Our ancestors needed a fast and safe way to judge if predators were hungry or sleepy, or if other humans were friendly or hostile.

As this was such an important instinct it became hard wired, and over-tuned so that false positives would happen. Hence man would encounter a volcano, and judge it to be angry or sleepy. Earthquakes could be attributed to anger in the earth. Aspects of mysterious nature would be attributed to intentional behaviour, and the idea of nature spirits became common. They could determine good and bad harvests, storms, disease, childbirth, etc. These later evolved into more sophisticated gods with personalities and complex relationships, and also into single gods that pulled all the strings.

So I feel self-esteem is less important than the instinctive presumption of intent in nature. Even now when we have an earthquake, someone attributes it to an angry god wreaking vengeance on those who deserve it. If someone recovers from a serious illness against the odds (which are not zero), a god is thanked. While self-esteem is a factor, I feel it's not the most significant one.

I notice that in society, those who tend to be more religious tend to be quite deferential and appreciative of a 'big chief' that has power over them, while those who are less religious are more 'at one' with nature as they see it.

Self-esteem seems to be less significant than the presumption and emotional need of this 'higher' power, while self-esteem matters at least as much to those who can see the universe as completely natural. I think it refers more to how we feel we are judged by other people, as society is so important to us all.

-unsquirming atheist

Edit:

Yep, it's no accident that religion can be referred to as a 'beneficial delusion', and this seems to be a social construct based on more instinctive nature. If a tribe has a common binding belief based on spirits/gods, veneration encourages common activity and teamwork, the mysteries and fears of the unknown are 'answered', common codes of behaviour can be justified/enforced, and people will go the extra mile in defending the tribe if their martyrdom is believed to have great rewards.

This works equally well for different tribes with different beliefs that are mutually incompatible i.e. they can't both be true. As competing tribes evolve into interacting nation states, this religious imposition and incompatibility turns into a burden as the innovation from free-thought, adaptation of moral codes to change, and interaction between different societies is so beneficial.

Self-esteem seems to come from a different direction, as it is a major trait (with empathy) that enables us to cooperate and interact as a society without excessive friction and negativity. With empathy we care, and with self-esteem we care what others think. Not much to do with mysticism at all. That is essential even for a small family group, while mysticism seems more important to larger, more organised tribes. I suspect self-esteem came first, though adapted as conditions changed.

wow.

I think that the misconceived perception of control overrides this concept and with supernatural entities this lack of control causes fear, but does not impede on ones sense of self.

Very nice. I now acknowledge I am the only one who has control of my life. I hope now you feel fulfilled.

"Man’s need of self-esteem entails the need for a sense of control over reality.

Bullshit.

Most of the people that I have met seem to have little trouble making reality up as they go.

Love and blessings Don

Unimpressive and not very close to actual human nature, not to mention that it shows little understanding of "morality" or moral systems.