Why do atheists get married?

[quatona]

Because I didn't know how else to translate it.
And something that lies beyond the observable system is "outside of science", isn't it?
As sciences observe the world, nature, etc.

Well, yes, it may be outside some other things, as well - but Maslow specifically talked about that which is beyond the observable.

Well, he seemed to shifted from one psychological school (humanistic psychology) to another (transpersonal psychology.)
My sister is studying psychology, and she's saying (although herself an Atheist), that in psycho-therapy the element of transcendence is important to some clients, and also come up in psycho-therapy sessions.
For example in dreams.

I´m not at all doubting that it is important (more or less consciously) to not only some but even many people. I mean there must be a reason why there are so many theists, deists, occultists, spiritualists etc., mustn´t there?
This, however, doesn´t force the conclusion that it is on top of the hierarchy of needs of those persons, and even less does it force the conclusion that it´s a (major or minor) need for everyone.

See, initially you asked the question:
In the Hierarhcy of needs of Maslow, at the very top is transcendence.
So, religion is transcendes. Now, if you say that you don't believe in religion and god, how do you feed the need of transcendence?

and later you said:

But I have learned at school that every human strives to transcendence as his highest need.

I personally do not agree with the premise that every human strives for transcendence as their highest need - and the mere fact that a guy named Maslow postulated such is not enough to convince me it´s true.
I don´t find myself having a need for transcendence, and thus the question how I feed my need for transcendence appears to be loaded.

And I've also found out that ALL people strive to believe in something supernatural, or transcendal.

Which method did you use to find that out? How, e.g., did you find out that I strive to believe in something transcendental?

And, no, I agree, it doesn't need to be a god.

Well, so in your observation all people strive for something transcendental, but not necessarily in a god. So why did you ask this question: Now, if you say that you don't believe in religion and god, how do you feed the need of transcendence?
If it´s true that you have observed all people (even non-religious ones) to strive for transcendence, you should be in the position of telling us how they feed this need, rather than asking.It´s what you claim you have observed, after all.

Of course, it all depends on how broad or narrow you define "transcendence" for purposes of this discussion....

 

[Esdra]

Well, yes, it may be outside some other things, as well - but Maslow specifically talked about that which is beyond the observable.

I would say that everything that can't be observed using sience is supernatural, thus "beyond the observable".

I´m not at all doubting that it is important (more or less consciously) to not only some but even many people. I mean there must be a reason why there are so many theists, deists, occultists, spiritualists etc., mustn´t there?
This, however, doesn´t force the conclusion that it is on top of the hierarchy of needs of those persons, and even less does it force the conclusion that it´s a (major or minor) need for everyone.

See, initially you asked the question:
In the Hierarhcy of needs of Maslow, at the very top is transcendence.
So, religion is transcendes. Now, if you say that you don't believe in religion and god, how do you feed the need of transcendence?

and later you said:

But I have learned at school that every human strives to transcendence as his highest need.

Yes, because I realized, based on Maslow's pyramid, that transcendence doesn't necessarily need to be fed by belief in a god.

I personally do not agree with the premise that every human strives for transcendence as their highest need - and the mere fact that a guy named Maslow postulated such is not enough to convince me it´s true.
I don´t find myself having a need for transcendence, and thus the question how I feed my need for transcendence appears to be loaded.Which method did you use to find that out? How, e.g., did you find out that I strive to believe in something transcendental?

I've read biographies, and also talked to people.
And at a point in their life, so my result, all of them strive to believe in something which is beyond the observable.
If it isn't a religion with a god, then it can be spiritualism (that you e.g. believe that the deceased can take actions on earth and on the living.), or occultism or esoterics. I think many atheists i.e. believe in horoscopes and astrology.
Or they believe in self-perfection. (where we touch up Buddhism, i.e.) Well, basically everybody believes in something.

Well, so in your observation all people strive for something transcendental, but not necessarily in a god. So why did you ask this question: Now, if you say that you don't believe in religion and god, how do you feed the need of transcendence?
If it´s true that you have observed all people (even non-religious ones) to strive for transcendence, you should be in the position of telling us how they feed this need, rather than asking.It´s what you claim you have observed, after all.

Because I 1) wanted to know that from you, Atheists.
and 2) because until then the idea of Maslow's pyramid didn't came into my mind.

Of course, it all depends on how broad or narrow you define "transcendence" for purposes of this discussion....

Transcendence for me is everything that can't be researched by sciences.
So, I would say, my definition is rather broad.

Basically, as the world is so complex and since there are things which can't (yet) be explained by scientists, I think humanity always's needed to believe in the supernatural and still does in the one or other way.
I don't know who said that, but I've read somewhere, that there are hardly no "real" Atheists. And that most of them are either Deists or Agnostics.

 

[quatona]

I would say that everything that can't be observed using sience is supernatural, thus "beyond the observable".

I do not necessarily disagree with this notion - however, what I am trying to tell you is: when translating someone else´s words, it´s not a good idea to let your personal ideas determine your translation.

Yes, because I realized, based on Maslow's pyramid, that transcendence doesn't necessarily need to be fed by belief in a god.

I've read biographies, and also talked to people.
And at a point in their life, so my result, all of them strive to believe in something which is beyond the observable.
If it isn't a religion with a god, then it can be spiritualism (that you e.g. believe that the deceased can take actions on earth and on the living.), or occultism or esoterics. I think many atheists i.e. believe in horoscopes and astrology.
Or they believe in self-perfection. (where we touch up Buddhism, i.e.) Well, basically everybody believes in something.

Sure everybody does - that doesn´t mean they believe in something transcendental.



Because I 1) wanted to know that from you, Atheists.
and 2) because until then the idea of Maslow's pyramid didn't came into my mind.[/quote]
Now, since I am telling you I am not aware that I have a need for nor strive for transcendence nor believe there to be a transcendental realm, and since you are the one who tells me that, like everybody else, I do - I would expect you to tell me what they are.

Transcendence for me is everything that can't be researched by sciences.
So, I would say, my definition is rather broad.

Ok.
I don´t know there´s anything that can´t be researched by science.

Basically, as the world is so complex and since there are things which can't (yet) be explained by scientists, I think humanity always's needed to believe in the supernatural and still does in the one or other way.

It always amazes me when the most self-suggesting third option isn´t mentioned: simply saying "I don´t know", and be done with it.

I don't know who said that, but I've read somewhere, that there are hardly no "real" Atheists. And that most of them are either Deists or Agnostics.

Well, most atheists indeed are agnostics, as well.
However, that tends to destroy your point rather than supporting it: after all, agnostics are those guys who say "I don´t know, and I can´t know". So how do you get from "He´s an agnostic" to "He holds transcendental beliefs" - that simply doesn´t follow, to put it mildly.

I would like you to keep in mind what another poster pointed out in the other thread: The fact that "transcendence" is on top of the Maslow´s pyramid actually suggests the opposite of what you think it suggests: It´s a "luxury" need - not until all our more basic needs (further down in the pyramid) we discover transcendence to be one of our needs.

 

[Esdra]

I do not necessarily disagree with this notion - however, what I am trying to tell you is: when translating someone else´s words, it´s not a good idea to let your personal ideas determine your translation.

Yes, I maybe translated too freely. I am not as good as I used to be in translating texts. (I studied translation studies 2 years ago, and haven't really needed it since then.)
But keep in mind that translating means to deliver the message, and not word-by-word.

Sure everybody does - that doesn´t mean they believe in something transcendental.

I believe they do.

Because I 1) wanted to know that from you, Atheists.
and 2) because until then the idea of Maslow's pyramid didn't came into my mind.

Now, since I am telling you I am not aware that I have a need for nor strive for transcendence nor believe there to be a transcendental realm, and since you are the one who tells me that, like everybody else, I do - I would expect you to tell me what they are.

I think I don't really get your last sentence. What should I tell you?

Ok.
I don´t know there´s anything that can´t be researched by science.

If you consider parapsychology and psycholgy as a science, then you're correct. - Or Astrology.
But usually at least parapsychology and astrology isn't considered as a science.

It always amazes me when the most self-suggesting third option isn´t mentioned: simply saying "I don´t know", and be done with it.

You can always say "I don't know", indeed.
But I think that humanity has always tried to explain everything. Starting on how the earth and the cosmos came into being (and there we have the question, which can't be answered by scientists yet, "what was before the Big Bang?"), to how the human body works and why it is so as it is (genetics.)

Well, most atheists indeed are agnostics, as well.
However, that tends to destroy your point rather than supporting it: after all, agnostics are those guys who say "I don´t know, and I can´t know". So how do you get from "He´s an agnostic" to "He holds transcendental beliefs" - that simply doesn´t follow, to put it mildly.

Okay, agnostics don't necessarily need to hold transcendental beliefs either, I agree.
Maybe it was not a good example.
But I still believe that also Agnostics come to a point in their life where they seek the supernatural, or start to believe in something supernatural.
At least at their death, where the most fundamental question arises, "what happens after death?"
Or when someone of their loved-ones die: "Where is he/she? Will I see him/her again?"

I would like you to keep in mind what another poster pointed out in the other thread: The fact that "transcendence" is on top of the Maslow´s pyramid actually suggests the opposite of what you think it suggests: It´s a "luxury" need - not until all our more basic needs (further down in the pyramid) we discover transcendence to be one of our needs.

Yes, I know. And as I've also written in the other thread, that ususally in the First World countries, all other needs are fulfilled, and then the need for transcendence comes into play.

 

[Freodin]

Yes, I know. And as I've also written in the other thread, that ususally in the First World countries, all other needs are fulfilled, and then the need for transcendence comes into play.

"Usually" it might be... "always" it is not.

Like quatona, I happen to life in a First World country, have my "other needs" fulfilled, and don't feel any need for transcendence.

Viele Grüße aus dem Norden Bayerns in den Süden Bayerns!

 

[Esdra]

"Usually" it might be... "always" it is not.

Like quatona, I happen to life in a First World country, have my "other needs" fulfilled, and don't feel any need for transcendence.

Viele Grüße aus dem Norden Bayerns in den Süden Bayerns!

Yes, it seems to be that some people indeed don't feel the need for transcendence. But based on my research (talks to atheists and reading biograhpies etc.), I believe that everybody feels the need for transcendence at some point in his life. - And if it's only reading the horoscopes daily, i.e.

Danke. Schöne Grüße ins Frankenland zurück.
Thanks. Best wishes back to Northern Bavaria.
Aber eigentlich bin ich nicht aus Deutschland, sondern aus Österreich, Tirol.
Es geht mir aber auf den Geist, dass die Amerikaner hier Österreich immer mit Australien verwechseln! Also bin ich hier im Christian Forum ins Oberallgäu übersiedelt!
But actually I'm not from Germany, but from Austria, the Tyrol.
But it got on my nerves that people always seem to mix up Austria with Austrailia! Thus, I moved here at CF to South Bavaria!

 

[Archaeopteryx]

I'm also a theist, but I've never believed that atheists lead a dull or depressing life.
They can enjoy nature, or music etc, just as an Theist can.
And I think that Atheists also have at least the same respect and enjoy towards mother earth, as do Christians, or in general Theists.

It's refreshing to hear that on this forum.

 

[Freodin]

It's refreshing to hear that on this forum.

Just don't let AV see that... he'll just start to accuse us (and Esdra as well) of worshipping Mother Nature.

 

[Esdra]

Just don't let AV see that... he'll just start to accuse us (and Esdra as well) of worshipping Mother Nature.

No, I don't think so.
There's a huge differnce between worshipping mother nature and enjoying it.

 

[Esdra]

It's refreshing to hear that on this forum.

You're welcome.
I am not a fundamentalist. And I think not all Christians here are.
I am a convinced Catholic, and I am certainly also conservative, but no fundamentalist.

 

[AV1611VET]

You're welcome.
I am not a fundamentalist. And I think not all Christians here are.
I am a convinced Catholic, and I am certainly also conservative, but no fundamentalist.

Please don't tell me you would sign the ECT document if you could.

 

[Esdra]

Please don't tell me you would sign the ECT document if you could.

No, I wouldn't. How do you come to that conclusion?

I am not opposed to eucumenical church services, as practiced between Lutherans and Catholics here. - And I've also attended some.
But you can't say that Evangelicals and Catholics are in theological agreement. I think there are too many theological differences. - Especially between Reformed Churches of all colours (from Presbyterians, to the Reformed Church, to Reformed Baptists, etc.) and the Catholic Church.

 

[AV1611VET]

No, I wouldn't.

-- You had me scared there for a second!

 

[Esdra]

-- You had me scared there for a second!

Why? Did my last post sound that liberal? ^^

No, no. I've been in the Calvinist/Reformed spectrum (I've been a Baptist for 2 years.) And came back to the Catholic Church and am pretty grateful and happy to be back.

 

[quatona]

Yes, I maybe translated too freely. I am not as good as I used to be in translating texts. (I studied translation studies 2 years ago, and haven't really needed it since then.)

Cool!

But keep in mind that translating means to deliver the message, and not word-by-word.

Well, the degree of your freedom depends a lot on what sort of text you are translating - a poem, a novel, a legal contract, a scientific text or a philosophical elaboration.

I believe they do.

You are entitled to believe that - however it makes a significant difference for the discussion whether this is your preconception or your conclusion.

I think I don't really get your last sentence. What should I tell you?

Sorry. I meant to say that since you believe that I have transcendental needs and hold transcendental beliefs (and I don´t) it´s sort of absurd to ask me what they are. It would be up to you to tell me what my transcendental beliefs are.

If you consider parapsychology and psycholgy as a science, then you're correct. - Or Astrology.
But usually at least parapsychology and astrology isn't considered as a science.

I don´t know there´s anything to astrology or parapsychology, just like I don´t know there´s anything to theism.

You can always say "I don't know", indeed.
But I think that humanity has always tried to explain everything. Starting on how the earth and the cosmos came into being (and there we have the question, which can't be answered by scientists yet, "what was before the Big Bang?"), to how the human body works and why it is so as it is (genetics.)

Well, I don´t try to explain these things.
I notice that while you formerly talked about "everybody" you now are talking about "humanity". The fact that there have always some or many or even a vast majority of people who tried to "explain everything" doesn´t support your assertion that everybody does it.

Okay, agnostics don't necessarily need to hold transcendental beliefs either, I agree.
Maybe it was not a good example.
But I still believe that also Agnostics come to a point in their life where they seek the supernatural, or start to believe in something supernatural.

Well, again: what you a priori believe and what you have concluded to be true about "everybody" are two different things.
I won´t discuss your a priori beliefs since they are, well, but your a priori beliefs.
However, when you make statements like "my observation is that everybody..." (as you did) I am going to put those assertions to scrutinity.

Yes, I know. And as I've also written in the other thread, that ususally in the First World countries, all other needs are fulfilled, and then the need for transcendence comes into play.

Fair enough. Would you also concede that this fact [i.e. that Maslow considered all other needs to be more basic than the need for "self-actualization" (later: "transcendence"] proves that your interpretation (on which your entire line of reasoning rest squarely) has it backwards?

 

[quatona]

Yes, it seems to be that some people indeed don't feel the need for transcendence. But based on my research (talks to atheists and reading biograhpies etc.), I believe that everybody feels the need for transcendence at some point in his life. - And if it's only reading the horoscopes daily, i.e.

Well, now that you have talked to the apparently first (at least) two persons (Freodin and me) who tell you they don´t feel a need for transcendence:
Are you going to figure this into the results of your "research" (and modify your conclusions accordingly), or are you going to ignore it and keep making claims about "everybody"?

 

[quatona]

Übrigens: mit all den Bayern, Süddeutschen und/oder Österreichern hier fühl ich mich als Junge von der Waterkant etwas aussen vor...

 

[AV1611VET]

Übrigens: mit all den Bayern, Süddeutschen und/oder Österreichern hier fühl ich mich als Junge von der Waterkant etwas aussen vor...

Ich habe nicht die geringste Ahnung, was Sie gesagt haben, da ich nicht Deutsch sprechen.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Ich habe nicht die geringste Ahnung, was Sie gesagt haben, da ich nicht Deutsch sprechen.

Auch habe ich keine Ahnung. Hat quatona 'in tongues' gesprochen, vielleicht?

 

[Eudaimonist]

Yes, it seems to be that some people indeed don't feel the need for transcendence. But based on my research (talks to atheists and reading biograhpies etc.), I believe that everybody feels the need for transcendence at some point in his life.

If by transcendence you mean "to experience, unite with and serve that which is beyond the individual self: the unity of all being" (source), I don't think that I've experienced anything like that since becoming an atheist, though I think I did have such feelings when I was a young Catholic. Perhaps that was a phase I had grown out of.

But that might be too narrow a concept of self-transcendence. I certainly do seek to grow as a person and thereby "transcend" who have I been in the past. This doesn't involve anything as grandiose as uniting with the universe. It just means seeking to become more knowing and wise as an individual.

Perhaps I can illustrate this in the following way. Even as a Catholic, I loved the move 2001: A Space Odyssey. I still do as an atheist, and just as much. In the movie, humanity "transcends" its former condition twice. Once, when the homo erectus clan meets the Monolith and gets a boost on its evolutionary journey towards becoming homo sapiens, and second when astronaut David Bowman is transformed into some sort of supra-human but fully natural entity. There is no indication in the film that the monolith-aliens have godlike knowledge or awareness. They know more than we do because they are an ancient species, but any help they give us is an advance as natural beings in a natural universe. This feels like a form of transcendence, but not one bound to any specifically supernatural religious views.

What I personally wonder if is self-transcendence is defined too narrowly. What is self-transcendence for one person (a theist, perhaps) might be something else entirely for another (an atheist, perhaps).

In any case, I personally think that Maslow should have stuck with self-actualization at the top of his pyramid. Self-transcendence should have been more on the side as something that can appear at any time.


eudaimonia,

Mark