What Is Heaven Like?

The idea of heaven emerges from altered states of consciousness and subliminal longing. The idea of different levels of being are extrapolated from the sense body of pleasure and pain. We have a marked preference between the two and so we conceive of an idealized state of being. The preference for pleasure seems to be hard wired into our organism as does the desire for attainment of it. We also seem to have the impression that we at one time enjoyed an idyllic life and this comes out sometimes in the saying remember the good old days or remember when. I think this comes from our early childhood impressions of the world and being in it before we were presented with specter of the expectations and disappointments of authority figures. A time when being was very liberal and supported on every front as opposed to being challenged, our infant hood or virgin experience of being.

Ideas or descriptions of heaven are found across cultures and religions and as described idealized conceptions of being are a standard human projection.

Ideas of heaven are found in Assyro Babylonian religion, ancient egyptian faith, in Hurrian and hittite myths, abrahamic religions, Ba'hai, buddhism, jainism, chinese faiths, hinduism, meso american religions, polynesian, theosophy, and of course heaven can be considered in terms the neurological underpinnings of consciousness.

What is heaven like, probably whatever it feels like or is projected as or as apprehended as in the ballet was a heavenly experience.

 

You're a hoot okiefreak . . . the way you accuse me of conflating religions and cultures while simultaneously conflating atheism, materialism, consumerism, etc, is priceless.

I especially like the jump from "Hmm, i wonder if there's more to life than the next Iphone?" to "jesus must have been the son of god after all!"

I'm sorry you had shitty teachers and role models and felt the need to escape to the warm cottony bosom of superstition.

If that video only represents an aberrant, "pathological version" of religion, then you must concede that your own encounters with your conflationary super-concept of atheism consists in only the aberrant, "pathological version" of atheism.

What if I told you that as an atheist, I reject consumerism? I reject corporate ladder mentality? I reject materialism? I reject modern western social standards of value (trophy wife etc)

You present the exact same error you accuse me of making, except that yours is deeper, because all these ideas you've confused with atheism never came from atheism, they came from a christian dominated west.

Whereas simple-minded religious ideas, which you and your minor subsect of churchgoers reject, are foundational to the core beliefs of many religions and religious peoples.

Try going to the american south and telling them that their ideas of young earth, hell, and other concepts are incorrect, and see what your lovely religions come up with as an intelligent retort.

Oh and you also misunderstood Dawkins' brilliant point about being atheist to other gods; the exact wording of that phrase is "Everyone is an atheist with respect to the other gods of antiquity". It's a great point and one of the most searing rebuttals against anti-atheism around.

I love how you accuse me of sounding full of myself for saying that I am a student of religions and philosophy, yet you spout off like a professor.

 

Perhaps you could clarify what you mean when you say you reject materialism.

If you google 'materialism' this is what you get

Materialism is a form of philosophical monism which holds that matter is the fundamental substance in nature, and that all phenomena, including mental phenomena and consciousness, are the result of material interactions.

Somehow I don't think that's what you're talking about.

 

Heaven for me is when I have strong connection with others usually through humor and also when I feel at one with nature.

 

I reject both consumer materialism and philosophical materialism, yes.

To add to the list from okiefreak's post, I also reject that the universe has no meaning (or that the question/statement is properly formulated), and I reject moral relativism.

Oh, and males DO have a biological imperative to spread their genes, as do females, so that point fails before it even gets going.

Basically every single concept he conflated with atheism I reject, and am atheist, and you will find atheists all along the spectrum of those beliefs, including many who do accept everything he says.

That's because atheism is a position concerned only with the existence of an intervening god; anything else past that and you have left the bounds of what atheism describes.

 

^ and exactly why I do not like the word atheism....

 

But I didn't do that. I just presented, as you did, one scenario--of how one person decided to find meaning in Jesus (whom I didn't mention). I don't recall mentioning atheism in my example either. And that's really all your video did, too. The problem is, as we know, it was intended as more than that--as a general commentary on "religion". I'm sorry the man in your video grew up in a backward community, was exposed to a primitive form of Christian fundamentalism, and decided to go atheist. Yes, there are backward forms of religion, which I challenge every day. I live in the Buckle of the Bible Belt. I still think Dawkins' point is less than "brilliant". A person who is "atheist" with respect to certain gods but not another is not an atheist at all. It's a clever rhetorical flourish, but not an accurate one. The fact that you regard it as "brilliant" suggests you should get out more.

I know lots of atheists, representing a variety of views. Oklahoma has one of the largest organizations of atheists in the U.S.--a reflection of the predominantly evangelical fundamentalist flavor of the dominant culture. I generally like most of the atheists I've met. Many, not all, of them do have stories similar to the one on your video, and find it difficult to distinguish between that version of religion and any other. I've been impressed with the morality of the ones I know, which compares favorably to the Christians I know. Any problems I have with atheists come from blogosphere and internet discussion site atheists who are the atheist's answer to Christian apologetics. You seem to be an example of that. The structure of the posts is similar and repetitive--portraying the beliefs of Christian fundamentalists or Muslim jihadists as typical of all religion, claiming that religion is somehow responsible for most of the war and violence in history, etc. I don't think atheists are directly involved in the mindless materialism of our culture, and in fact many who perpetuate it would call themselves "Christian". Yet atheism, per se, does not solve the problem of meaning, and I think it's unlikely that if the world's religions were swept away, we'd have peace and harmony in the world. There is potential for meaning in secular ideologies. I have a friend who says on his website "Atheist tells you what I don't believe. Humanist tells you what I do believe". But that line of thought tends to be under-developed in our posts. We once had a video in this forum, which still probably exists in the archives, of the Four Horsemen of Atheism: Dawkins, Dennett, Harris, and Hitchens. Toward the end of their talk, they got around to the issue of how an atheist society would provide for the "numinous", which they acknowledged to be important to humans. Of course, that's one thing that religions do. As I recall, they raised the question, but the solutions were meager. Atheists might be more effective if they address that question. So you reject moral relativism. What is the source of your moral values, and why do you accept it? What would you put in place of consumerism and materialism? To what extent do you think humans could or should develop cultural norms that resist or rein in biological imperatives?

 

I didn't read that jump to that paragraph about the guy at university/consumerism/materialsim as a specific accusation against atheism. Maybe it was ment like that. I'm sure he will clarify. But I thought it was just given as an another example of how people reach religion/faith. Instead of your chronically onesided way of perceiving why people become religious, stay religious or 'crawl back' to religion again later in their 'comfort cocoon'.
Wether he is doing the same thing in a way or not, the accusation about your perspective on religion seems correct. Other people have been trying to tell it to you as well.

About the vid you posted after me, I hope that wasn't ment as an answer or reaction to my post? I think it is much more interesting and would much rather see your own thoughts (instead of an indirect video response of a guy I don't care about and can't even react to what I say) on what I said there:

Am I really that far off according to you? If so where am I going wrong here? Thanks in advance for your answer (I still owe you some, didn't forget)

I'm sorry but I think you read that a bit too mucn into it. As I read it he really doesn't mean to say that materialism and consumerism is an exclusive atheist or areligious issue or is caused by it. As people have been trying to point out endlessly to you: theist and nontheists, religious and a-religious people all are often much more like each other, equally pragmatic and equally reasonable, other than you like to state. It is such a pity how you hang on those labels like atheist and theist when in reality they often have no problem with eachother or with reality. You are the one who has a problem with religion. Or certain aspects, but that is where you go wrong all the time (at least in your wording).
I do have the feeling we too are much more alike in our opinions and views (as I often notice on this forum), it is just that we may appear to have opposite stances or ways of life because you 'rally' against religion and I react against agitating atheists on here. This is why it is such a pity when people feel too right for their own or others good. Your mentality against abrahamic religions and its followers seems sometimes closer to the spanish inquisition and witch hunts than those of a lot of christians. This seems to be because you focus on the excesses, the fundamentalists, theocracies/non secular societies etc. etc. All things no sensible and educated person (religious or not) approves. What also doesn't help is that you seem to mainly read and watch sources that are already out to stigmatize religion. Those are the ones you consistently share anyway. Let's hope you take notice of more objective sources too.

You are not making that accusation? And why would it be a deeper/bigger kind of error to say those ideas were not solely caused by religion? Isn't that a valid thing to considerate? Like everything basicly is worthy to question.

Foundational of many (2000 year old) religions indeed, but not to all religious people. You may make a fair point about the faulty things in religion or done by religious people but you get lost in it when you insist it is those foundational dogmas or principles in religion that is the main problem. It is always the people that are causing those (as it were people that influenced your view and associations on theistic beliefs), which may be because of lack of education, lack of interest in finding out the truth, cultural tradition/consensus (also the reason why many people are part of a religion/religious community, which is what makes statistics about how all christian people think about morality or a certain dogma unreliable).

You may portray his way of 'spouting things' as sounding like a preachy professor, to me it seems he is actually taking a scientific (as in historic/theological/philosophical/anthropological) approach. I guess this is all due to the perspective we are coming from.

Anyway, I also feel like giving a real life example of what changed my perspective (imho for the better): I thought and expressed myself in a very similar way as you, and perceived it as the most sensible and right approach. I mean I am genuinly interested in societal progression, the ultimate truth, understanding history and the perceptions of historic people, all kinds of philosophical ideas etc. so if I am genuingly interested in all those things I must be on the right track, and how could people that are part of such a religion that contains so many dogmas and errors (if we take and act upon it literally) be taken seriously or equal us in reason and logic, right?
Now, I became a real history student (aiming to become a teacher) and actually my class contained more history students that were very likeminded like me back then and you now. And we sometimes made it clear in history classes (that of course included many european religious conflicts, shifts etc. that influenced history and society) how we perceived religion and religious people, especially those 'simpletons' back in medieval days and earlier. Well, I had some great teachers there (who were not religious themselves btw) that showed us how worthless we are as a history teacher or student if we can not look past our very subjective, tainted and generalized perception on these matters. We have to want to see it objectively in order to see it objectively. We may need a little imagination to understand people and perceptions opposite than us. We need an open mind about really understanding all facets of religion and how and why it came to be, developed and has been (ab)used. If you mainly are concerned about one or two facets of religion (dogmas/fundamentalism and the negative aspects religion and its followers in general had on history and society) it will influence your perception.

 

Here's another example I think. Is the subject matter less great because it is religious? It doesn't take away from the mastery of course, but does it take away from the beauty of a piece of art? No, personal associations and convictions seem to do that. Of course finding something beautiful is always subjective, but we are talking about taste then.
People that only find things beautiful in art when it completely agrees with them (not only because of taste/style but also or even mainly because of the subject matter or why it was painted or shown in the first place) can never fully appreciate such art, or the meaning of things behind it. It is not necessarily about agreeing with those things at all, there is just a large chance that a person will never even fully understand or appreciate where the maker was coming from. A pity when such a person does has the urge to judge it of course.

 

I'd say that great art speaks for itself. It's not really possible to just rubbish it because it's 'religious' art.
I don't think you have to necessarily believe any in religion to appreciate art inspired by it. It's obviously good if you have some understanding.

It would be ridiculous for instance to look at a religious painting by Raphael, and just because it's religious try to say it was other than a consummate piece of work. You'd have to be blinded completely by ideology or stupidity to make such a claim.

 

Agreed (as I know from experience ).

Also, especially for history lovers and people that fancy taking notice and enjoy any kind of perspective and artistic outlet of it (not just the the ones they can agree with, or 'make sense to them' ), art like that isn't only beautiful because of the outstanding skills of the painter. Especially centuries later it gets only more fun to unravle the symbolism, meaning and perspectives in them, and of course be amazed by how people thought and lived back then. And how clever and creative they were in a lot of things, despite all the knowledge they didn't have (or at least didn't have the certainties of that we now commonly have). I'm kind of talking both about their mastery of the arts and how they pondered about philosophical ideas and concepts.

 

Agreed.

I think when you look at a great work of art or writing from the past, you get an insight into what was at the time the leading edge of human culture. Clearly they were mistaken about some things, but it's not as if we nowadays have a comprehensive knowledge of the universe and its operations. And I would argue that we don't produce art on anything like the same level as at certain periods in the past.

Another aspect of it relates to writers like Dante and Milton - both used a religious framework, but were talking about a lot more than only religion.
There's also architecture - I'd certainly rather look at a great cathedral than a modern block of offices.

We live in a utilitarian age, and don't really value art in the way it used to be valued.

 

I'm not sure about the last sentence. I really used to piss on a lot of abstract work and also on a lot of other modern art as I thought it lacked skill and didn't impress me in any way. Now I think art as a whole is moving in these directions because the top of how to paint something utterly realistic has been reached and done to death already. It seems to be less challenging and exciting for artists these days (overall) to focus on the same kind of mastery because 1) we also have photography to get an accurate pic of something/someone, so in this sense the 'necessity' is lost and 2) it doesn't give a new perspective or new artistic impression anymore.
But even though artists generally go and take a different approach than the master painters back in the day, I still think art is valued in the same way. We might think especially by the people who love such art and are into it, but show a classic masterpainting to a 'cultural barbarian' and they will be impressed and find the beauty and value in it just like people centuries ago did

IMO, we live in a very diverse society and age, and just because we are in some kind of 'crisis' or watever is causing this utilitarian age/vibe it is merely one of many approaches. Even though the utilitarian approach/perspective seems to be the prevailing one these days, it doesn't mean society as a whole values art in a different way. Maybe the majority is just not confronted with (such) art to the same extent because there are more things created to look at (movies, tv, cartoons etc. etc.).

 

I like quite a lot of modern art - I'm not saying it's all rubbish. But you're right that purely representational art has had it's day, and since the invention of photography it doesn't have the same relevance.

I also think that in past ages, art was more the purview of a limited group - the wealthy, who could afford it. Probably the only time a 15th c. proletarian would have seen any paintings was in a church. The Medici family may have lived in beautiful and palatial buildings, but certainly not the lower echelons of society. Even now, I think it's only more educated people who have much appreciation of art. But I could be wrong, or taking too much of a 'high art' kind of attitude.

I do think though that modern culture is very good at creating ugliness and not so good at creating beauty. The town where I live has many Norman and Georgian buildings which are pleasing to look at but are unfortunately punctuated by concrete monstrosities. Big plastic looking mega stores etc. That's what I mean by utilitarian in this sense, and maybe it's not the right word, but I'm sure you know what I mean, coming as you do from a country with a fantastic artistic heritage.

 

So where does all this come from if not a) matter or b) spirit/god?

 

Where in those choices does electricity belong? Gravitation? Moonlight? The sense of "I" inside you? Regret? Ecstasy? Transcendental love? These are all happenings of the universe around us. We need not cleave it up as you present the choice.

 

it comes from our own nature as sapient beings. from the only thing that objectively differentiates us from any other sort of sentient beings. if anything actually does. and i question that as well.

and by thing i mean imagination. in the sense of this drive we have, greater then other creatures of our own planet, to be creative.

heaven, if there is something to be experienced in the non-physical state, between physical lives, will be experienced, as we have constructed within ourselves, to expect, to experience it.

while i find the work of the rafielites technically impressive, i do not find it, for the most part, inspiring nor attracting. i see it as depicting a fantasy of a sort i would not find greatly enjoyable.

i would expect "heavan" to have many aspects of a forest. wild, divers, full of the unexpected, while at the same time not being overly exciting, but certainly fascinatingly convoluted. much as nature makes the trees and rocks of our physical world.

but i would not expect any state of existence, to be any more eternal then any other, and that states as yet unimaginable, lie beyond each other.

 

All of those things are part of the universe we experience.

The question is how did this come into being? Is it the result of purely material forces, or does it come from some form of higher conciousness or god?

 

You return to the artificial cleaving; where do you get your two categories from, "material" and "consciousness/god" ? What observation or evidence has led you to believe that there are two such groups?

 

I don't understand, Writer. Although what you are saying about they're being part of the same and we don't have to cleave them up artificially or conceptual is a very valid thought to me, I would not expect you to make it. Especially not when we're talking about defining what heaven could be or, like in another thread, what God could be, you seem to focus on proper discernment and things/concepts that are not proven or even likely to exist should not be put in the same category or connected to the same certainty of provable and observable things. Well, at least not when we're debating what such abstract things could be, or how likely it is to really exist.
Isn't there always some artificial cleaving going on in these debates about these topics (not in the least from you too)? And I would even agree with the usefulness of it, when we're trying to make sense to eachother about these concepts and the likeliness of it. Not that we can't state ideas that the universe/matter and God (or consciousness) might all be intrinsically part of eachother (on the contrary), but it seems now you are advocating such different concepts as love and electricity, god and the universe (or roughly said abstract concepts and observable matter) don't need artificial cleaving in this discussion at all.

Although you didn't ask me, my thoughts on the 'matter' (pun intended :-D): it is kind of evidential that these categories aren't used for nothing and it is understandable where they come from and why they (and thus all kinds of forms of 'artificial cleaving') are applied. These groups might not be absolute in reality, but they are very useful in our thinking when we're making sense of observations and make use of evidence while applying or connecting abstract thoughts and concepts onto them (which is partly how this 'artificial cleaving' came to be).