Alpinism and Religion

MikePond wrote: I did my masters thesis on this topic. It was called "Investigating climbing as a spiritual experience." Free summary and download (scroll down) if you want to check it out:   rave.ohiolink.edu/etdc/view…  

I would love to break it all down but it's Friday afternoon and my brain hurts, and it's been a few years since I touched this paper. Anyway, hope it contributes to the conversation. Warning: it's 128 pages, but quite readable as far as academic papers go.

Just downloaded for a rest day read. Thanks for sharing.

A found this a worthy read a while ago: Religion for the Nonreligious 
That blog (Wait but Why) also has some other interesting deep dives to read. Worth saving an offline webpage for campsite reading in the future (putting time in perspective, 7 ways to be insufferable on facebook and many more)

So far, I think we've changed 0 opinions in 8 pages. Head on over to Supertopo and see how long their Religion vs Science thread is (thousands of posts)

1. Zack your theory does kind of disqualify the existence of this all loving supremely good natured god but does not eliminate the idea that a creator could be flawed and evil like the human race.  I guess that would still leave the Pagan gods in play.  They loved all kind of bad shit
2. Whatever whatever, you are missing 2 valuable points. The first is that everything must start or begin with something.  You didn't just appear out of thin air.  You were created by your parents.  And so was everyone else.  And every building was also created by someone.  Nothing pops out of the blue.  2nd is about evidence.  We have short lifespans and little known history of things.  Univeverse has existed for millions of years.  If you were the creator, do you think you would feel the need to prove yourself everyday to mere mortals.  Maybe the creator got tired of that shit a couple million years ago.
3. Mike I am going to read your paper.   Thanks for sharing.
4. Briggs you crack me up man.  You are a cool cat.

Briggs Lazalde wrote:

But when the brain dies and according to science can no longer have the capacity to have a conscientious experience... Yet does, and in fact more vividly

Citation needed.

If that did happen, which again I am not convinced it has... Any scientifically minded person would then tell you: we would have to revise our beliefs for the new evidence. Science doesn't say "that didn't happen because it violates science!" It says "Beliefs are based on evidence. Here is what we currently know and believe, and this is the evidence for why we believe it". If new evidence comes forward, beliefs are modified.

you start to wonder if the 5 senses limit us and maybe they don't paint our reality for us but allow us to see only a glimpse of it

Any modern person would agree with you on that... we can't see radio waves for example. A bit pedantic but I wouldn't say our senses limit us.. having those 5 senses is quite liberating compared to having 0 senses.. just that they are not sufficient for observing everything in the universe.

1. Whatever whatever, you are missing 2 valuable points. The first is that everything must start or begin with something.  You didn't just appear out of thin air.  You were created by your parents.  And so was everyone else.  And every building was also created by someone.  Nothing pops out of the blue.  2nd is about evidence.  We have short lifespans and little known history of things.  Univeverse has existed for millions of years.  If you were the creator, do you think you would feel the need to prove yourself everyday to mere mortals.  Maybe the creator got tired of that shit a couple million years ago.

Lol... I would say the existence of the Universe proves that either everything can appear out of thin air, or it always existed and did not need to start or begin. What other options are there!?

Plus there's the whole "well where did god come from then" thing........ whatever argument you have for that, apply it to the universe itself.

I will say though, that is a really interesting topic to explore! Certainly blows my atheist mind thinking about how the universe could come to be, or how it could have always existed.

Damn whatever, you kind of got me there.  It is very hard to imagine something before there was nothing.

You guys are great and I thoroughly enjoy going at it with all of you.

bttrrtRock Charles wrote: A religion based on climbing and the lessons learned therein would be far more beneficial and believable that those requiring blind faith.  

I do not discount the possibility of a deity or deities. I would suggest however that a religion representing the true words of god would likely offer more positive mental habits and skill sets in minds of its followers.

Is it just coincidence that blind faith is so prominent in Christianity and also  so easily used to manipulate people into doing things they wouldn't other wise do. Like, ehem, funding the church? Why would god create a religion that was set up for failure by its main premise (faith)?

Why do you repeat the term "blind faith"?  I have faith, but it is certainly not "blind".  It is confirmed by examples and evidence around me every day, along with experiences I have had climbing in the mountains.  And what does it matter to you if I fund the Church--unless you have an animosity toward the Church and Christians in general?

Zack Robinson wrote:

Imagine someone asked if an all-powerful being existed whose only goal was to make sure Chris Wright never existed.  This being supposedly knows everything, can do anything and his only goal is to make sure Chris Wright never gets to be born.  Does that being exist?  Of course not.  I'm talking to Chris Wright right now.  If that being existed, there would no Chris Wright.  There is a Chris Wright, so that being doesn't exist.

That is a beautiful straw man argument.  You set up a fictional god who wills that Chris Wright never existed, then say that since Chris Wright exists, then God must not exist.  It sounds like what you are saying is that since a triangle by definition is 3-sided (true), and that your god by definition does not exist (speculation), then a 4-sided god who exists is impossible.

Reading Aristotle's five proofs for the existence of God might be educational.

David Baltz wrote: Why do you repeat the term "blind faith"?  I have faith, but it is certainly not "blind".  It is confirmed by examples and evidence around me every day, along with experiences I have had climbing in the mountains.  And what does it matter to you if I fund the Church--unless you have an animosity toward the Church and Christians in general?

Well from a fellow American Citizen's point of view, the fact that Churches receive discounts on taxes, means that all Americans, regardless of their belief system, are partially funding your/their/any Church/other building utilizing favorable taxation status. That includes Scientology, et al. 

I would much rather not have my tax dollars support any religion - so yes, it can matter to others. You're fine to donate your dollars - but again, if someone donates to a Church and gets a charitable deduction on their taxes, that means that I and other citizens are supporting the organization they donated to. 

Matt N wrote:

Well from a fellow American Citizen's point of view, the fact that Churches receive discounts on taxes, means that all Americans, regardless of their belief system, are partially funding your/their/any Church/other building utilizing favorable taxation status. That includes Scientology, et al. 

I would much rather not have my tax dollars support any religion - so yes, it can matter to others. You're fine to donate your dollars - but again, if someone donates to a Church and gets a charitable deduction on their taxes, that means that I and other citizens are supporting the organization they donated to. 

Deflection.  The comment was about where I spend my money--not tax dollars.

I would prefer not to have my tax dollars spent on Planned Parenthood or Public Education (when I payed double to send my kids to parochial schools), but that is the cost of a pluralistic society.

Matt N wrote:

Are you demanding that science prove a negative? It would be much easier for religions to simply prove that their god exists.

all you have to do is update your definition of "god"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R_GPAl_q2QQ

the vast majority of people who "don't believe in god" simply haven't had it thoroughly defined to them yet.  ( you see this shown quite clearly in this thread... where people still hold the view that "god must be all loving all caring all powerful")
even among, "believers" the 'definition of god' you would get if you asked, both patrons and preachers alike, would be quite varied.  
this is not a judgment on said people, for understanding the definition of god is actually rather difficult.   ( anglo-biblical god, that is.   all gods are not created equal. )
The knowledge in the bible is highly compressed, and still it takes over a thousand pages to lay out the idea.

Matt N wrote:

Are you demanding that science prove a negative? It would be much easier for religions to simply prove that their god exists.

I'm not demanding that science do anything.  I am saying that because science can't prove a negative, it is not a good tool to prove god doesn't exist.

whatever whatever: Those rebuttals don't mean this argument fails.  "God works in mysterious ways" might be what someone responds to my argument with, but that is not the same thing as defeating this argument.  Btw, as much as I'd like to call this "my argument," it's not.  It's probably the most widely discussed argument against god in history, at least among philosophers of religion.  And most adherents to the three main religions can't say that god isn't the greatest guy around.  Omnibenevolence is a core requirement for god to be god in the big three religions.  

Regarding your Game of Thrones example, the obvious question here is what your response is when someone disagrees with you on Game of Thrones being fictional.  The problem of evil shows incompatibility between the nature of god and the world we observe.  That is why it is useful.  Just saying the Bible is fictional doesn't actually give an argument for why it is fictional.  

I don't think it makes sense to think of "burden of proof" in these sorts of arguments.  We should all probably have good reasons for why we believe what we believe and reasons for why we think competing views are false.  Sure, I think theists should have arguments for why they believe god exists.  But I can do better than just say "They can't prove what they believe."  I can say "Here's an argument that makes their belief, at a minimum, very unlikely to be true."  Btw, there are arguments in favor of god's existence.  I don't find them compelling, but it's disingenuous to say there is zero evidence in favor of his existence.

Chris Wright: Of course, the problem of evil is not designed to eliminate the possibility of any kind of god.  It is targeting the god of the three main religions, all of which postulate an omnibenevolent god as an indelible part of their religion.  Could there be a "god" who is all-powerful and all-knowing but has simply sat  back and watched things?  Sure.  I don't know how we could make any progress toward knowing whether such a god exists.

David Baltz: I didn't lay out a strawman.  I think you are misunderstanding my argument.  Chris Wright's existence doesn't disprove god's existence.  Chris Wright's existence proves there is no all-powerful being whose sole goal is to prevent Chris Wright from existing.  If such a being existed, Chris Wright would not.  Chris Wright does exist, therefore, that being can't exist.  I think you got confused on several of the points I was making.  And I have read Aquinas' five proofs.

J Squared: There is no singular definition of "god."  That's why any philosophy paper on this sort of topic is going to start by laying out definitions.  "God" can be defined so many different ways that I could be both an atheist under one definition and a strong adherent under another.  The god I have been discussing, and that most people here are discussing, is the traditional three-trait god espoused by the big three religions in the world.  When someone says they "don't believe in god," they are making a claim about a specific definition of "god."  It isn't that they haven't had the definition properly explained to them.  It is that there are countless definitions.

George Carlin said "how come we can't get people to believe in a wet paint sign but they will believe in a big invisible man in the sky." So now we have two references to Carlin in the last how many ever posts so I will believe in George. He makes a lot of sense and I could see him.

Zack Robinson wrote:

  It isn't that they haven't had the definition properly explained to them.  It is that there are countless definitions.

a-ha! the classical tagline.   there may be countless definitions, but there are only very few definitions of gods which have resulted in societies that are truly prosperous.

god = a societies highest ideal.

all societies on this planet clearly are not equal.  this is quite evident due to the flows of immigration, and the levels of suffering / prosperity in each nation.

the next ~20 minutes of this sums things up nicely.

^^ this video also covers the issue which the atheist types constantly harp on about how "you need to prove to us that god exists".  The whole structure of scientific reasoning came from a foundation.

why was there an Enlightenment in europe but not in africa? it's not random, but borne of the deeply rooted value structures that even allowed each specific society to progress to the point where scientific rationality could start to flourish.

J Squared wrote: a-ha! the classical tagline.   there may be countless definitions, but there are only very few definitions of gods which have resulted in societies that are truly prosperous.

god = a societies highest ideal.

all societies on this planet clearly are not equal.  this is quite evident due to the flows of immigration, and the levels of suffering / prosperity in each nation.

the next ~10 minutes of this sums things up nicely.

^^ this video also covers the issue which the atheist types constantly harp on about how "you need to prove to us that god exists".  The whole structure of scientific reasoning came from a foundation.

why was there an Enlightenment in europe but not in africa? it's not random, but borne of the deeply rooted value structures that even allowed each specific society to progress to the point where scientific rationality could start to flourish.

It's very important to be precise with our definitions in these sorts of discussions.  It is sort of like discussions about consciousness.  "Consciousness" can refer to phenomenological consciousness as in the hard problem, simple wakefulness as in a person is conscious and alert or just general awareness as in a person is conscious of his shortcomings (along with others).  These are three totally different concepts, and if it isn't clear what we are discussing from the beginning, the discussion probably won't be useful.

"God" can refer to a lot of different concepts as well:

God1: A personal, three-trait god who is responsible for creation and is the focus of the three major religions

God2: The forces responsible for the existence and order of the natural world

God3: The thing we value most

I don't believe in God1.  I certainly believe in God2.  I would imagine everyone believes in God3, although we might differ on what constitutes this "god."  But the important thing here is that these aren't just different takes on what god is.  They are totally different concepts.  It would be like if steak and chocolate ice cream were both called "ice cream."  You might hate ice cream in one sense but love it in another.  They're just homonyms.  This is a problem with our language.  The notion of what we value most (God3) is totally unrelated to God1 (unless we believe in God1 and think that's what we should value, of course).  

You are discussing here what we should value as a culture in order to be prosperous -- similar to God3.  That is totally different from the question of whether God1 exists.  I certainly don't think all values are created equal, and I think some values lead to prosperous societies while others don't.  But that all has to do with God3.  It has nothing to do with God1.  More importantly, even if we could somehow see that there was a perfect correlation between societal success and belief in God1, that wouldn't be evidence for God1.  It would just be evidence that belief in God1 is useful.

On the video: I think Peterson and Shapiro are both terrible philosophers.  Shapiro clearly has some philosophical training (although I don't think he actually has a philosophy degree), so he can speak the language somewhat.  Peterson mostly rambles on about nonsense (his idea that "god" is essentially our evolutionary notions of masculinity was bizarre to say the least, and he didn't offer any support for his idea that there is a metaphysical reflection of these basic biological truths....even though that was sort of the crux of the whole issue).  But their discussion here really has nothing to do with the existence of god.  It is honestly more theological than philosophical in the sense that it presumes the existence of god as a premise for the rest of the conversation.  Their conversation makes sense if we assume that the god of the Bible exists, and humans can thus be "made in his image."  But talking about humans' ability to be rational and work toward a purpose, just as the god of the Bible supposedly created things with a purpose, doesn't give us any reason to think such a god exists.  Shapiro hints at the teleological argument (one of the five proofs of Aquinas an above poster mentioned), but he doesn't elaborate on it much.

Kevinmurray wrote: George Carlin said "how come we can't get people to believe in a wet paint sign but they will believe in a big invisible man in the sky." So now we have two references to Carlin in the last how many ever posts so I will believe in George. He makes a lot of sense and I could see him.

If you only believe what your eyes can see then your life is very simplistic bud.  How would a blind man believe in anything, even George Carlin?

Zach I most certainly believe in Your example of God 2 but my brain doesnt really allow me to believe in God 1.  

Jaren Watson wrote:

You think this is a true statement? I don’t.

Science has almost nothing useful to say on many of life’s most valuable issues.
How do you know when you’re in love?

How should I respond to this latest difficulty my daughter is having?

Why is the poetry of Yeats better than a Hallmark card?

When should I stop grieving the death of my father?

Art, I would argue, communicates in a way science neither can nor likely ever will, a way needed more deeply than anything science fulfills.

Pure gold. But I prefer the poetry of Bleats.

Also, +1 on errythang Baltz has said, but I say we remove fiscal incentivization for all religious groups, including public schools. I taught fifth grade for years and our educational system is a joke without a punchline.

Hahahah.  I was wondering how long it would take for MP to bust out Jordan Peterson and Ben Shapiro.  I guess it’s only a matter of time that someone brings in Sam Harris and then everyone can pat themselves on the backs for being so enlightened and intellectual.

Yup very simple life, real basic. Be here now. Ken Kesey said "take what you need and let the rest go by." I am not a communist but Karl Marx was right about religion.

I didn't lay out a strawman.  I think you are misunderstanding my argument.  Chris Wright's existence doesn't disprove god's existence.  Chris Wright's existence proves there is no all-powerful being whose sole goal is to prevent Chris Wright from existing.  If such a being existed, Chris Wright would not.  Chris Wright does exist, therefore, that being can't exist.  I think you got confused on several of the points I was making.  And I have read Aquinas' five proofs.

I can get confused but this is your third clarification and I still don't understand the analogy then.

Aristotle (~400 BC) was the first to propose the five proofs.  Thomas Aquinas (13th century) --who was the first Catholic scientist--took Aristotelian logic and applied it to Theology.  Good for you for reading him!

All... I am not especially religious, being forced by stepdad to go to Mass every Sunday sort of soured my viewpoint on religion.
All I can say is this: religious beliefs are very personal and I do not criticize anybody for having them.
But to the OP- Alpinism and Religion. I was good friends with Tobin Sorenson, we climbed together a lot. In his early days he was what I call a “searcher” - Lookin for some meaning to life and trying to answer the WHY. He wanted to be a Buddhist at one time, I think he was also reading the Kohran (sp) always looking.... he was a bad ass climber for sure- always extremely bold and fearless. But at the same time restless and not always happy.
Then he re-discovered his Christian faith- his father was a preacher- after that his climbing changed. He was still bold but he climbed without worry or fear. One time I got to him at a pretty marginal anchor and I was sort of whining about it, all Tobin said was “the Lord will protect...”.
I suggest people read the story “Witlessly Bold, Heroically Dull” by Tobin Sorenson.
He was one fine person and a good friend to all. I miss him and think of him ... especially on cold mornings.