There are multiple ways of dualism in Christianity as far as I understand it (though admittedly I have not read too far into this). There's the dualism of God and creation, the dualism of good and evil, dualism of body and mind. You'll have to be specific, unless you're saying all dualism doesn't exist as the world is non-dual? But I'm not sure how you could prove the world is non-dual if we're dealing with the first example I listed of God and creation because then you'd have to prove that God didn't exist by another set of means?
If you're talking about the dualism of good and evil not existing, then fine. But then this isn't just a religious problem, but a human one is it not? If there is no existential objective standard and no real soul to refer to and it is all an illusion, then isn't all morality basically quicksand since there's not really such a thing as a moral standard at all, because how would you then define it? So many different civilizations or even individuals have vastly different ideas of morality and who's to say which is right or wrong if objectively there is no such thing. Yet, not many atheists I've met live like this. They still believe in a right and a wrong. So I mean, then it's not just designated to one of religious faith as you stated originally, so why single them out? In fact, why should the OP be offended in the first place if objectively his morals don't hold any value?
All dualism is false. The traditional sense of God infers it/He/She as "other", and thus, dual.
Every evocation of dualism is an affront to reality for such principles. Period. Dualism implies separate. Separate from
what? The answer is always something from thought, and it's within thought that divisive concepts begin. Non-dualism is understanding all that naturally exists is parts of a whole, for it's all interconnected and interdependent, and there is nothing that anything can be cut off from. In an everyday sort of sense, most people don't grasp that understanding of reality. It goes against our collective common sense, but that has been rigged according to what we can understand from science. It would not be alarming to assume you might even think of yourself as a separate, isolated person, but in order for that to be so, you'd have to be you all the time.
There are countless experiential gimmicks that can be used to help someone have the first-person experience to see through the illusion, if one doesn't wish to simply say "neurology makes these claims, and that's that". I'll even give one: tell me who "I" am from your experience? By "I" I mean your self. It will surely be things
projected on the organism, such as a name and various social roles of identity. Try and look for this "I" when looking or hearing, and you might see it's not there. There's no outsider to those experiences, and the ego is the illusion of an outsider.
Right and wrong should come from humanity, from understanding what is. Using morality is a fucking terrible line of justification, for that comes from conditioning, not understanding. Morals play the game of self, that image, and all of the good and bad evocations given therein. Most people can't even wrap their heads around the fact that in the natural sense, nothing is good nor bad, but it is the thought over what is that creates that, which in turn creates the conflict in our world. For the OP to be offended, that's caught in the problem of personalizing things. He is still playing the illusion of "me" as an image, as an isolated skin-encapsulated ego, and confusing that image with reality. This is what society gets wrong right out of the gate, so almost everyone within most societies has a factually false identity of themselves. It could be precisely why this post probably making sounds like psychobabble or New Age mysticism.
You are correct that it's not exclusive to religion, but religion and society, but much of this starts by religion and society tends to carry similar principles of thought. They're both clearly wrong on this topic, though.
Perhaps it's not as much of an affront to what naturally appears to be so as you think. Plenty of scientists (1 in 3 in America) have somehow reconciled their faith with their research, and even from an atheistic standpoint
it makes sense why one would become religious.
If you think God is "what there is", the manifestation of all ground of being, you don't need to use the word God. God is creator of creating, Big Papa, something other than you. All of that is stupid thinking based on poor concepts. If you claim God to be some "innate intelligence" allowing all of this to manifest, the word
still infers a creator behind it. Instead, we have a reality that merely happens of itself, and all that can be explained is what we can figure out in the happenings.
To explain this cosmos, there appear to be three large models at play.
- Ceramic: This infers the cosmos was made, like a potter makes a pot. This is laughable for we cannot find nor prove a potter, so we can only conceptualize one. This falls into a great problem called "God of the gaps" for this potter is continued to be eroded from plausibility as we study more of the cosmos.
- Mechanical: This is usually taken as a direct antithesis to to the Ceramic model. This infers all that exists is flukes and parts. This also promotes dualism in a way that fails to match the world, and all this accomplishes is getting rid of Big Boss.
- Organic: The best way to describe this model would be to say what happens occurs of itself. It's not made by a potter, nor a fluke, but grown on processes that have some innate properties that allow manifestation of various forms in this universe. This model is the most applicable to science without any game of retrofitting, and the only one that proposes non-dualism, making it the only likely candidate we have if we're going to have any serious conversation on this universe.
Most people still believe in the Ceramic model, and this is a great issue, for that is continued to be enforced over reality, which assures issues regarding compatibility.
