Trancendental
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 4 (100%)
http://blogs.reuters.com/faithworld/2008/06/09/southern-baptists-hold-meet-amid-falling-baptisms/
I found this interesting - I was wondering where all these super-religious people came from anyway.
Baptisms Fall for Third Straight Year
- Thread starter Trancendental
- Start date
http://blogs.reuters.com/faithworld/2008/06/09/southern-baptists-hold-meet-amid-falling-baptisms/
I found this interesting - I was wondering where all these super-religious people came from anyway.
level1online
Banned
How much does it cost to get Baptized under the Baptist Church?
Is there some kind of contract that obligates the person to financially support the church after the Baptism?
Is there some kind of contract that obligates the person to financially support the church after the Baptism?
As societal emphasis on critical inquiry continues to increase, religion will be pushed aside and eventually become a relic of our past. Our ancestors will read in history books about how we used to kneel in pews and hope some mythical omnipotent being fixed our problems, and they'll view it no differently than we view ancient Greek sailors who drowned horses in an attempt to sway Poseidon.
Trancendental
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 4 (100%)
[quote name='Koggit']As societal emphasis on critical inquiry continues to increase, religion will be pushed aside and eventually become a relic of our past. Our ancestors will read in history books about how we used to kneel in pews and hope some mythical omnipotent being fixed our problems, and they'll view it no differently than we view ancient Greek sailors who drowned horses in an attempt to sway Poseidon.[/quote]
That's alot to read into a 3-year drop in baptisms.
I can't figure if the article is chronicalling wholly positive developments - it seems that Baptists are trying to diversify their message - but their greatest hits (bigotry against gays and government prohibitions of women's reproductive choices) are still the trump cards in their deck. Newer issues such as saving the environment and working to eradicate poverty end up being devisive and controversial issues for this crowd. Can't see how that's progressive at all.
That's alot to read into a 3-year drop in baptisms.
I can't figure if the article is chronicalling wholly positive developments - it seems that Baptists are trying to diversify their message - but their greatest hits (bigotry against gays and government prohibitions of women's reproductive choices) are still the trump cards in their deck. Newer issues such as saving the environment and working to eradicate poverty end up being devisive and controversial issues for this crowd. Can't see how that's progressive at all.
thrustbucket
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 7 (100%)
[quote name='Koggit']As societal emphasis on critical inquiry continues to increase, religion will be pushed aside and eventually become a relic of our past. Our ancestors will read in history books about how we used to kneel in pews and hope some mythical omnipotent being fixed our problems, and they'll view it no differently than we view ancient Greek sailors who drowned horses in an attempt to sway Poseidon.[/QUOTE]
Your perception of modern spirituality and religion is just as over-simplified and archaic as what you deride.
Furthermore, that's a secularist/athiest wish list, but not realistic.
Human beings are fundamentally spiritual beings. Their understanding of the universe will continue to evolve and grow with science. But they will never, as a species, abandon their spiritual nature anymore than they will abandon sexuality.
That all being said, as per the OP, I've never understood Evangelicalism and have always felt that it's unfair that they somehow represent all spiritual movments to the secular.
Your perception of modern spirituality and religion is just as over-simplified and archaic as what you deride.
Furthermore, that's a secularist/athiest wish list, but not realistic.
Human beings are fundamentally spiritual beings. Their understanding of the universe will continue to evolve and grow with science. But they will never, as a species, abandon their spiritual nature anymore than they will abandon sexuality.
That all being said, as per the OP, I've never understood Evangelicalism and have always felt that it's unfair that they somehow represent all spiritual movments to the secular.
CrimsonSnipette
CAG Veteran
[quote name='Msut77']
[/quote]
[quote name='camoor']Newer issues such as saving the environment and working to eradicate poverty end up being devisive and controversial issues for this crowd. Can't see how that's progressive at all.[/QUOTE]
Well, it's progressive for the world at large to have a group with very regressive ideas become smaller. Obviously it isn't progressive for them, but c'est la vie.
[quote name='thrustbucket']Human beings are fundamentally spiritual beings. Their understanding of the universe will continue to evolve and grow with science. But they will never, as a species, abandon their spiritual nature anymore than they will abandon sexuality.[/QUOTE]
That may very well be true, but that doesn't mean organized religion as we know it is necessarily the way that need will manifest itself. Spirituality =/= religion.
[quote name='thrustbucket']That all being said, as per the OP, I've never understood Evangelicalism and have always felt that it's unfair that they somehow represent all spiritual movments to the secular.[/QUOTE]
Squeaky wheel gets the oil.
Well, it's progressive for the world at large to have a group with very regressive ideas become smaller. Obviously it isn't progressive for them, but c'est la vie.
[quote name='thrustbucket']Human beings are fundamentally spiritual beings. Their understanding of the universe will continue to evolve and grow with science. But they will never, as a species, abandon their spiritual nature anymore than they will abandon sexuality.[/QUOTE]
That may very well be true, but that doesn't mean organized religion as we know it is necessarily the way that need will manifest itself. Spirituality =/= religion.
[quote name='thrustbucket']That all being said, as per the OP, I've never understood Evangelicalism and have always felt that it's unfair that they somehow represent all spiritual movments to the secular.[/QUOTE]
Squeaky wheel gets the oil.
thrustbucket
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 7 (100%)
[quote name='trq']
That may very well be true, but that doesn't mean organized religion as we know it is necessarily the way that need will manifest itself. Spirituality =/= religion.
[/QUOTE]
I'd agree with that.
That may very well be true, but that doesn't mean organized religion as we know it is necessarily the way that need will manifest itself. Spirituality =/= religion.
[/QUOTE]
I'd agree with that.
DarkSageRK
Banned
[quote name='thrustbucket']
Human beings are fundamentally spiritual beings. Their understanding of the universe will continue to evolve and grow with science. But they will never, as a species, abandon their spiritual nature anymore than they will abandon sexuality.
[/quote]
What do you mean "as a species?"
It's not an essential component of humankind.
Sexuality is necessary. We need to reproduce as a species to continue onwards.
Eating/drinking is necessary. We need to sustain our bodies.
Having belief in a higher power is not. It offers NO advantage to us besides peace of mind. In which case, you may as well argue that marijuana/a good knock upside the head is just as, if not more, important than religion.
Human beings are fundamentally spiritual beings. Their understanding of the universe will continue to evolve and grow with science. But they will never, as a species, abandon their spiritual nature anymore than they will abandon sexuality.
[/quote]
What do you mean "as a species?"
It's not an essential component of humankind.
Sexuality is necessary. We need to reproduce as a species to continue onwards.
Eating/drinking is necessary. We need to sustain our bodies.
Having belief in a higher power is not. It offers NO advantage to us besides peace of mind. In which case, you may as well argue that marijuana/a good knock upside the head is just as, if not more, important than religion.
[quote name='thrustbucket'][Human beings] will never, as a species, abandon their spiritual nature anymore than they will abandon sexuality.[/QUOTE]
I disagree with that opinion of yours.
Spirituality is just a social construct, bred by lack of critical inquiry and a desire for direction and explanation. We will, as we advance intellectually, reach a point where the vast majority are not concerned with spiritual beliefs because we will never have strong beliefs about a matter that involves zero evidence on both sides.
Having strong convictions -- be they theistic or atheistic -- is intellectually weak. Having strong beliefs, fabricated from nothing, should be discouraged in every aspect of life, not just spirituality. There are few topics so completely devoid of evidence to compare it to, but as an analogy off the top of my head, wormholes could work. Nobody knows anything at all about them. The possibility that they may exist is rooted in the possibility that white holes exist, which is rooted in the possibility that black holes exist. And even then, it makes radical assumptions about space-time. It would be absolutely ridiculous for someone to say "I'm pretty sure there are wormholes and we can travel through them" is absolutely no different than somebody saying "I'm pretty sure there's a god and/or afterlife." The difference is nobody is dumb enough to assert the former. The latter, I strongly believe is a social construct enabled only by tradition and a lack of critical inquiry.
I disagree with that opinion of yours.
Spirituality is just a social construct, bred by lack of critical inquiry and a desire for direction and explanation. We will, as we advance intellectually, reach a point where the vast majority are not concerned with spiritual beliefs because we will never have strong beliefs about a matter that involves zero evidence on both sides.
Having strong convictions -- be they theistic or atheistic -- is intellectually weak. Having strong beliefs, fabricated from nothing, should be discouraged in every aspect of life, not just spirituality. There are few topics so completely devoid of evidence to compare it to, but as an analogy off the top of my head, wormholes could work. Nobody knows anything at all about them. The possibility that they may exist is rooted in the possibility that white holes exist, which is rooted in the possibility that black holes exist. And even then, it makes radical assumptions about space-time. It would be absolutely ridiculous for someone to say "I'm pretty sure there are wormholes and we can travel through them" is absolutely no different than somebody saying "I'm pretty sure there's a god and/or afterlife." The difference is nobody is dumb enough to assert the former. The latter, I strongly believe is a social construct enabled only by tradition and a lack of critical inquiry.
thrustbucket
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 7 (100%)
[quote name='DarkSageRK']What do you mean "as a species?"
It's not an essential component of humankind.
[/QUOTE]
Just because you can't reproduce in a lab why it is necessary for some, doesn't mean you can assume that 1) it must not be and 2) those that feel differently are just more simple minded or less educated.
[quote name='Koggit']I disagree with that opinion of yours.
[/QUOTE]
I know you do. And I read and appreciate your response. I totally understand your response and have heard it many times from many "intellectual" atheist friends as well.
Suffice it to say, we certainly are going to have to 100% disagree. And the main reason for that is that in mans quest for understanding and truth, you see spiritualism and inner-research as invalid, regressive, and the polar opposite of peer-reviewed science. I don't. So there won't be much to discuss without that common ground.
It's not an essential component of humankind.
[/QUOTE]
Just because you can't reproduce in a lab why it is necessary for some, doesn't mean you can assume that 1) it must not be and 2) those that feel differently are just more simple minded or less educated.
[quote name='Koggit']I disagree with that opinion of yours.
[/QUOTE]
I know you do. And I read and appreciate your response. I totally understand your response and have heard it many times from many "intellectual" atheist friends as well.
Suffice it to say, we certainly are going to have to 100% disagree. And the main reason for that is that in mans quest for understanding and truth, you see spiritualism and inner-research as invalid, regressive, and the polar opposite of peer-reviewed science. I don't. So there won't be much to discuss without that common ground.
DarkSageRK
Banned
[quote name='thrustbucket']Just because you can't reproduce in a lab why it is necessary for some, doesn't mean you can assume that 1) it must not be and 2) those that feel differently are just more simple minded or less educated.
[/quote]
Perhaps you could provide me with evidence that backs up your claim that humans need spirituality in order to be human?
[/quote]
Perhaps you could provide me with evidence that backs up your claim that humans need spirituality in order to be human?
mykevermin
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 34 (97%)
[quote name='dopa345']Religion and politics are completely intertwined. I think as long as religion remains a viable political tool to influence the masses, it will always exist in one form or another.[/QUOTE]
Who needs religion when the people can be placated with Pabst Blue Ribbon and American Gladiators?
Who needs religion when the people can be placated with Pabst Blue Ribbon and American Gladiators?
Trancendental
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 4 (100%)
[quote name='Koggit']I disagree with that opinion of yours.
Spirituality is just a social construct, bred by lack of critical inquiry and a desire for direction and explanation. We will, as we advance intellectually, reach a point where the vast majority are not concerned with spiritual beliefs because we will never have strong beliefs about a matter that involves zero evidence on both sides.
Having strong convictions -- be they theistic or atheistic -- is intellectually weak. Having strong beliefs, fabricated from nothing, should be discouraged in every aspect of life, not just spirituality. There are few topics so completely devoid of evidence to compare it to, but as an analogy off the top of my head, wormholes could work. Nobody knows anything at all about them. The possibility that they may exist is rooted in the possibility that white holes exist, which is rooted in the possibility that black holes exist. And even then, it makes radical assumptions about space-time. It would be absolutely ridiculous for someone to say "I'm pretty sure there are wormholes and we can travel through them" is absolutely no different than somebody saying "I'm pretty sure there's a god and/or afterlife." The difference is nobody is dumb enough to assert the former. The latter, I strongly believe is a social construct enabled only by tradition and a lack of critical inquiry.[/quote]
I used to have an opinion similar to yours (though I was less radical) - then one day I asked myself what if everything I believed was wrong (thought experiment you know)
I started experimenting with meditation and rituals, and to my surprise some of it worked. It could just be the calming practice of meditation combined with the Jungian archetypes that my mind happens to resonate with, but I truly don't think at this time that the whole of human understanding of the universe is dominated by the hard sciences. IMO the mind is alot more powerful then most people give it credit for - and as the Bard said
Spirituality is just a social construct, bred by lack of critical inquiry and a desire for direction and explanation. We will, as we advance intellectually, reach a point where the vast majority are not concerned with spiritual beliefs because we will never have strong beliefs about a matter that involves zero evidence on both sides.
Having strong convictions -- be they theistic or atheistic -- is intellectually weak. Having strong beliefs, fabricated from nothing, should be discouraged in every aspect of life, not just spirituality. There are few topics so completely devoid of evidence to compare it to, but as an analogy off the top of my head, wormholes could work. Nobody knows anything at all about them. The possibility that they may exist is rooted in the possibility that white holes exist, which is rooted in the possibility that black holes exist. And even then, it makes radical assumptions about space-time. It would be absolutely ridiculous for someone to say "I'm pretty sure there are wormholes and we can travel through them" is absolutely no different than somebody saying "I'm pretty sure there's a god and/or afterlife." The difference is nobody is dumb enough to assert the former. The latter, I strongly believe is a social construct enabled only by tradition and a lack of critical inquiry.[/quote]
I used to have an opinion similar to yours (though I was less radical) - then one day I asked myself what if everything I believed was wrong (thought experiment you know)
I started experimenting with meditation and rituals, and to my surprise some of it worked. It could just be the calming practice of meditation combined with the Jungian archetypes that my mind happens to resonate with, but I truly don't think at this time that the whole of human understanding of the universe is dominated by the hard sciences. IMO the mind is alot more powerful then most people give it credit for - and as the Bard said
DarkSageRK
Banned
[quote name='Msut77']You must be new to the vs. forum.[/quote]
But it said in the description "mature discussion."
Awww, shucks.
But it said in the description "mature discussion."
Awww, shucks.
Yeah, it's reading to much to say religion is dying because of this. Baptist churches could be losing members to other churches etc.
As much as I'd love for organized religion to go away, it's not going to happen any time soon if ever. It's too ingrained in people, many people need the comfort of believing in an afterlife etc.
As much as I'd love for organized religion to go away, it's not going to happen any time soon if ever. It's too ingrained in people, many people need the comfort of believing in an afterlife etc.
The original topic was sort of boring so I wanted to drift away from it.
I'm not just saying organized religion will become obsolete, if anything organized religion will stay and take on new forms. Many atheists and agnostics attend church and are a part of a religious community just for the moral ideals presented. I think getting rid of religion is less likely than getting rid of spirituality.
Belief, as the practice of holding a conviction without any reason to do so, will dissipate. People may attend church, but they won't believe "If I sin, I'm going to hell!" The preacher will assert, as the opinion of the church, "If you sin, you're going to hell" but churchgoers will acknowledge that's only one possible truth of many.
I'm not just saying organized religion will become obsolete, if anything organized religion will stay and take on new forms. Many atheists and agnostics attend church and are a part of a religious community just for the moral ideals presented. I think getting rid of religion is less likely than getting rid of spirituality.
Belief, as the practice of holding a conviction without any reason to do so, will dissipate. People may attend church, but they won't believe "If I sin, I'm going to hell!" The preacher will assert, as the opinion of the church, "If you sin, you're going to hell" but churchgoers will acknowledge that's only one possible truth of many.
thrustbucket
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 7 (100%)
[quote name='DarkSageRK']Perhaps you could provide me with evidence that backs up your claim that humans need spirituality in order to be human?[/QUOTE]
Perhaps you could give me evidence that humans need love in order to be human? Give me evidence that humans need sex-drive in order to be human (procreation is possible without it)? Maybe some evidence that people need government in order to be human?
See my point? Those are all things you could argue all day are not absolutely necessary, but we embrace them in society because they ENHANCE our experience.
Such things come down to opinion. I can only go by how I personally experience life and feel, and the people I know experience life and feel. I believe most people inherently know there is more going on in the universe than what critical thinking and the scientific method can currently, if ever, provide all the answers to.
I even find it mildly offensive, if not somewhat ignorant, when people talk as if spirituality and all associated with it are antiquated crutches humans no longer need. If anything, we could use more smart people recognizing it's value instead of attempting to assert their "higher ideals" in an attempt to make people feel foolish.
[quote name='koggit']
I think getting rid of religion is less likely than getting rid of spirituality.[/quote]
And I would side with trq: [quote name='trq']That may very well be true, but that doesn't mean organized religion as we know it is necessarily the way that need will manifest itself. Spirituality =/= religion.[/quote]
If anything, people will start to shed the need for dogmatic structured worship and turn to a more one-size fits all new age type spiritualism.
Perhaps you could give me evidence that humans need love in order to be human? Give me evidence that humans need sex-drive in order to be human (procreation is possible without it)? Maybe some evidence that people need government in order to be human?
See my point? Those are all things you could argue all day are not absolutely necessary, but we embrace them in society because they ENHANCE our experience.
Such things come down to opinion. I can only go by how I personally experience life and feel, and the people I know experience life and feel. I believe most people inherently know there is more going on in the universe than what critical thinking and the scientific method can currently, if ever, provide all the answers to.
I even find it mildly offensive, if not somewhat ignorant, when people talk as if spirituality and all associated with it are antiquated crutches humans no longer need. If anything, we could use more smart people recognizing it's value instead of attempting to assert their "higher ideals" in an attempt to make people feel foolish.
[quote name='koggit']
I think getting rid of religion is less likely than getting rid of spirituality.[/quote]
And I would side with trq: [quote name='trq']That may very well be true, but that doesn't mean organized religion as we know it is necessarily the way that need will manifest itself. Spirituality =/= religion.[/quote]
If anything, people will start to shed the need for dogmatic structured worship and turn to a more one-size fits all new age type spiritualism.
DarkSageRK
Banned
[quote name='thrustbucket']Perhaps you could give me evidence that humans need love in order to be human? Give me evidence that humans need sex-drive in order to be human (procreation is possible without it)? Maybe some evidence that people need government in order to be human?
See my point? Those are all things you could argue all day are not absolutely necessary, but we embrace them in society because they ENHANCE our experience.
Such things come down to opinion. I can only go by how I personally experience life and feel, and the people I know experience life and feel. I believe most people inherently know there is more going on in the universe than what critical thinking and the scientific method can currently, if ever, provide all the answers to.
I even find it mildly offensive, if not somewhat ignorant, when people talk as if spirituality and all associated with it are antiquated crutches humans no longer need. If anything, we could use more smart people recognizing it's value instead of attempting to assert their "higher ideals" in an attempt to make people feel foolish.[/quote]
...Wow.
Did you...did you even read my post? I said nothing about love, sex drives, or the government. Our species propagates itself based on biological sexuality. I don't know how you would argue against that.
I think I'll take Msut's advice and just back away.
See my point? Those are all things you could argue all day are not absolutely necessary, but we embrace them in society because they ENHANCE our experience.
Such things come down to opinion. I can only go by how I personally experience life and feel, and the people I know experience life and feel. I believe most people inherently know there is more going on in the universe than what critical thinking and the scientific method can currently, if ever, provide all the answers to.
I even find it mildly offensive, if not somewhat ignorant, when people talk as if spirituality and all associated with it are antiquated crutches humans no longer need. If anything, we could use more smart people recognizing it's value instead of attempting to assert their "higher ideals" in an attempt to make people feel foolish.[/quote]
...Wow.
Did you...did you even read my post? I said nothing about love, sex drives, or the government. Our species propagates itself based on biological sexuality. I don't know how you would argue against that.
I think I'll take Msut's advice and just back away.
thrustbucket
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 7 (100%)
[quote name='DarkSageRK']...Wow.
Did you...did you even read my post? I said nothing about love, sex drives, or the government. Our species propagates itself based on biological sexuality. I don't know how you would argue against that.
I think I'll take Msut's advice and just back away.[/QUOTE]
I absolutely read your post buddy.
You asked for EVIDENCE that humans NEED spirituality to be HUMAN.
I countered with comparing spirituality to the above issues, asking for EVIDENCE that humans NEED those things to be HUMAN. I did so because they all fit in the same category. Things not necessary to be HUMAN, but enhance life.
You want proof that spirituality is somehow NECESSARY to actually be human? Well you aren't going to get it. Because most things we enjoy and use to progress aren't necessary to BE human. You are the one that wants evidence for what's NEEDED for being HUMAN. That's what you said, isn't it?
And for the record I didn't say humans could do without sex. I said SEX DRIVE. Meaning, horniness. Humans can still propagate without being horny. So, like your argument against spirituality being unnecessary, I can make the same argument that horniness is unecessary. People can still procreate without being horny. And I could easily argue all the pitfalls sex-drive has on society, just like you can argue the pitfalls of spirituality/religion on society.
Did you...did you even read my post? I said nothing about love, sex drives, or the government. Our species propagates itself based on biological sexuality. I don't know how you would argue against that.
I think I'll take Msut's advice and just back away.[/QUOTE]
I absolutely read your post buddy.
You asked for EVIDENCE that humans NEED spirituality to be HUMAN.
I countered with comparing spirituality to the above issues, asking for EVIDENCE that humans NEED those things to be HUMAN. I did so because they all fit in the same category. Things not necessary to be HUMAN, but enhance life.
You want proof that spirituality is somehow NECESSARY to actually be human? Well you aren't going to get it. Because most things we enjoy and use to progress aren't necessary to BE human. You are the one that wants evidence for what's NEEDED for being HUMAN. That's what you said, isn't it?
And for the record I didn't say humans could do without sex. I said SEX DRIVE. Meaning, horniness. Humans can still propagate without being horny. So, like your argument against spirituality being unnecessary, I can make the same argument that horniness is unecessary. People can still procreate without being horny. And I could easily argue all the pitfalls sex-drive has on society, just like you can argue the pitfalls of spirituality/religion on society.
[quote name='dmaul1114']Yeah, it's reading to much to say religion is dying because of this. Baptist churches could be losing members to other churches etc.
As much as I'd love for organized religion to go away, it's not going to happen any time soon if ever. It's too ingrained in people, many people need the comfort of believing in an afterlife etc.[/QUOTE]
This is just something I heard but apparently a part of it is that the younger members of these churches are sick of being used as nothing but grunts for the GOP, some of them do not share the same exact values as their elders on environmentalism or gays etc.
As much as I'd love for organized religion to go away, it's not going to happen any time soon if ever. It's too ingrained in people, many people need the comfort of believing in an afterlife etc.[/QUOTE]
This is just something I heard but apparently a part of it is that the younger members of these churches are sick of being used as nothing but grunts for the GOP, some of them do not share the same exact values as their elders on environmentalism or gays etc.
[quote name='thrustbucket']Perhaps you could give me evidence that humans need love in order to be human? Give me evidence that humans need sex-drive in order to be human (procreation is possible without it)? Maybe some evidence that people need government in order to be human?[/QUOTE]
Not relevant.
Sex drive, unlike spirituality, is a trait of biology -- not the mind. It is a biological trait that helps achieve the goal of its species: survival. Those without sex drive do not reproduce and don't breed, which doesn't help the survival rate of our species -- evolution has taken care of that.
Love is very closely related. Love is a biochemical process that we've evolved to help aid survival -- it makes us protect and provide for those we want to reproduce with, or our children and siblings.
Government is completely unrelated. Government is a societal evolution created to accomplish life's goals most efficiently.
Really, for you to compare spirituality to biological and societal traits is quite absurd. I know you're not stupid, but that was a stupid thing for you to say. Spirituality makes for an apt comparison to the belief, with conviction, that we can travel through a wormhole and warp time by doing so. Blind belief, with no objective, and no evidence for or against the belief.
Not relevant.
Sex drive, unlike spirituality, is a trait of biology -- not the mind. It is a biological trait that helps achieve the goal of its species: survival. Those without sex drive do not reproduce and don't breed, which doesn't help the survival rate of our species -- evolution has taken care of that.
Love is very closely related. Love is a biochemical process that we've evolved to help aid survival -- it makes us protect and provide for those we want to reproduce with, or our children and siblings.
Government is completely unrelated. Government is a societal evolution created to accomplish life's goals most efficiently.
Really, for you to compare spirituality to biological and societal traits is quite absurd. I know you're not stupid, but that was a stupid thing for you to say. Spirituality makes for an apt comparison to the belief, with conviction, that we can travel through a wormhole and warp time by doing so. Blind belief, with no objective, and no evidence for or against the belief.
thrustbucket
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 7 (100%)
[quote name='Koggit']
Really, for you to compare spirituality to biological and societal traits is quite absurd. [/QUOTE]
And I think it's absurd to write off our obvious innate spiritual curiosity as an archaic byproduct of the mind from a more ignorant chapter in our history. (if that's what you are saying)
The reason I, and many, compare spirituality to biological or social traits, is because we believe they are equally important, if not more (To the HUMAN experience). Our inability to pin spiritual down in a lab and generate physical evidence, doesn't automatically negate it's importance. You probably feel differently and that's likely the core of where we likely disagree.
Remember, the post I was responding to was questioning if/how spirituality makes us HUMAN. From a survivalist point of view, the things I listed are absolutely NOT necessary for Humans to persist and exist physically. Like those biological and social traits, our innate spiritual side can be watered down, suppressed, perhaps even destroyed, and we will still survive physically just fine.
We all pick and choose, with help from our parents, environment, schooling, etc., which innate traits we will suppress or embrace.
See, what it comes down to is these questions:
1) Should biological traits alone be all that is valid in defining what makes us human?
2) Should you be able to take the entire human experience and distill it down to biology and a few electrical signals between synapses?
If you believe the answer is yes to both of those, then everything you said in your last post makes a lot more sense. But I believe the answer is no to both.
It's simply this - I believe it's just as much human nature to explore spirituality as it is to seek love, to seek sex, to seek social structure. It's a need inherent in most humans. It always has been and always will be. Whether or not you can biologically or scientifically prove why this need exists is irrelevant.
I am assuming you likely disagree with me because you adhere to the school of thought that believes all spiritual tendency and exploration generally stem from ignorance, inability to critically think, lack of education, and fear of the unknown. Right?
Really, for you to compare spirituality to biological and societal traits is quite absurd. [/QUOTE]
And I think it's absurd to write off our obvious innate spiritual curiosity as an archaic byproduct of the mind from a more ignorant chapter in our history. (if that's what you are saying)
The reason I, and many, compare spirituality to biological or social traits, is because we believe they are equally important, if not more (To the HUMAN experience). Our inability to pin spiritual down in a lab and generate physical evidence, doesn't automatically negate it's importance. You probably feel differently and that's likely the core of where we likely disagree.
Remember, the post I was responding to was questioning if/how spirituality makes us HUMAN. From a survivalist point of view, the things I listed are absolutely NOT necessary for Humans to persist and exist physically. Like those biological and social traits, our innate spiritual side can be watered down, suppressed, perhaps even destroyed, and we will still survive physically just fine.
We all pick and choose, with help from our parents, environment, schooling, etc., which innate traits we will suppress or embrace.
See, what it comes down to is these questions:
1) Should biological traits alone be all that is valid in defining what makes us human?
2) Should you be able to take the entire human experience and distill it down to biology and a few electrical signals between synapses?
If you believe the answer is yes to both of those, then everything you said in your last post makes a lot more sense. But I believe the answer is no to both.
It's simply this - I believe it's just as much human nature to explore spirituality as it is to seek love, to seek sex, to seek social structure. It's a need inherent in most humans. It always has been and always will be. Whether or not you can biologically or scientifically prove why this need exists is irrelevant.
I am assuming you likely disagree with me because you adhere to the school of thought that believes all spiritual tendency and exploration generally stem from ignorance, inability to critically think, lack of education, and fear of the unknown. Right?
To inject myself into this debate....
I think spirtuality largely stems from fear of the unknown. I wouldn't label in as ignorant, lacking education etc, there are plenty of extremely intelligent and well educated people who are very religious or otherwise spiritual.
I just think it comes from fearing the unknown, wanting some comfort that we'll see loved ones again after they've passed on, of having some "answer" for where the universe comes from.
And I don't really mean that negatively. While I'm not remotely spiritual, I don't look down on those who are--as long as they're not shoving their beliefs down other's throats anyway.
Whether to be spiritual, and the form that should take, should be totally personal endeavors only shared with those who want to hear it.
I've just never been spiritual. I just never bought the idea of a supreme being, supernatual forces or anything like that. I like hard facts, research, finding what to me are "real" answers. But I respect that others are different and turn to spirituality on some matters. To each their own.
I think spirtuality largely stems from fear of the unknown. I wouldn't label in as ignorant, lacking education etc, there are plenty of extremely intelligent and well educated people who are very religious or otherwise spiritual.
I just think it comes from fearing the unknown, wanting some comfort that we'll see loved ones again after they've passed on, of having some "answer" for where the universe comes from.
And I don't really mean that negatively. While I'm not remotely spiritual, I don't look down on those who are--as long as they're not shoving their beliefs down other's throats anyway.
Whether to be spiritual, and the form that should take, should be totally personal endeavors only shared with those who want to hear it.
I've just never been spiritual. I just never bought the idea of a supreme being, supernatual forces or anything like that. I like hard facts, research, finding what to me are "real" answers. But I respect that others are different and turn to spirituality on some matters. To each their own.
thrustbucket
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 7 (100%)
Good post dmaul. I enjoy reading posts like that.
The more I read your posts the more you remind me of many of my close friends. That's a good thing.
The more I read your posts the more you remind me of many of my close friends. That's a good thing.
crystalklear64
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 7 (100%)
You are actually a brain parasite that has fused so completely with the human brain that it is assumed that you are a part of the human brain and are undetectable.
Prove this wrong.
Prove this wrong.
[quote name='thrustbucket']And I think it's absurd to write off our obvious innate spiritual curiosity as an archaic byproduct of the mind from a more ignorant chapter in our history. (if that's what you are saying)
The reason I, and many, compare spirituality to biological or social traits, is because we believe they are equally important, if not more (To the HUMAN experience). Our inability to pin spiritual down in a lab and generate physical evidence, doesn't automatically negate it's importance. You probably feel differently and that's likely the core of where we likely disagree.
Remember, the post I was responding to was questioning if/how spirituality makes us HUMAN. From a survivalist point of view, the things I listed are absolutely NOT necessary for Humans to persist and exist physically. Like those biological and social traits, our innate spiritual side can be watered down, suppressed, perhaps even destroyed, and we will still survive physically just fine.
We all pick and choose, with help from our parents, environment, schooling, etc., which innate traits we will suppress or embrace.
See, what it comes down to is these questions:
1) Should biological traits alone be all that is valid in defining what makes us human?
2) Should you be able to take the entire human experience and distill it down to biology and a few electrical signals between synapses?
If you believe the answer is yes to both of those, then everything you said in your last post makes a lot more sense. But I believe the answer is no to both.
It's simply this - I believe it's just as much human nature to explore spirituality as it is to seek love, to seek sex, to seek social structure. It's a need inherent in most humans. It always has been and always will be. Whether or not you can biologically or scientifically prove why this need exists is irrelevant.
I am assuming you likely disagree with me because you adhere to the school of thought that believes all spiritual tendency and exploration generally stem from ignorance, inability to critically think, lack of education, and fear of the unknown. Right?[/QUOTE]
The last paragraph's off base. After all, I'm a physics major. Many of the greatest physicists are quite religious. From Newton to Hawking, there's a great deal of spirituality in the thoughts I respect most.
With that said, #1 is imprecisely worded, and #2 I can confirm my answer would be yes. To believe otherwise is to believe in the supernatural, which is just another form of faith.
You're using the faith that there is more to us than what we could ever physically understand -- that is, the likes of an unquantifiable soul. Faith in the unquantifiable quality is what you're using to justify belief in another conviction of the unquantifiable.
Essentially, it goes..
You: Humans have a primal need for spirituality, regardless of whether that spirituality is rooted in any sort of observation or rational deduction. Faith is human nature.
Me: Why do you say so? We've seen no evidence of that -- unlike all other aspects of human nature, which are biologically explicable, at least to some extent.
You: The part of human nature that needs faith must be believed in, it cannot be obtained from observation or rational deduction.
Spirituality, in general, requires cyclical logic I suppose...
The reason I, and many, compare spirituality to biological or social traits, is because we believe they are equally important, if not more (To the HUMAN experience). Our inability to pin spiritual down in a lab and generate physical evidence, doesn't automatically negate it's importance. You probably feel differently and that's likely the core of where we likely disagree.
Remember, the post I was responding to was questioning if/how spirituality makes us HUMAN. From a survivalist point of view, the things I listed are absolutely NOT necessary for Humans to persist and exist physically. Like those biological and social traits, our innate spiritual side can be watered down, suppressed, perhaps even destroyed, and we will still survive physically just fine.
We all pick and choose, with help from our parents, environment, schooling, etc., which innate traits we will suppress or embrace.
See, what it comes down to is these questions:
1) Should biological traits alone be all that is valid in defining what makes us human?
2) Should you be able to take the entire human experience and distill it down to biology and a few electrical signals between synapses?
If you believe the answer is yes to both of those, then everything you said in your last post makes a lot more sense. But I believe the answer is no to both.
It's simply this - I believe it's just as much human nature to explore spirituality as it is to seek love, to seek sex, to seek social structure. It's a need inherent in most humans. It always has been and always will be. Whether or not you can biologically or scientifically prove why this need exists is irrelevant.
I am assuming you likely disagree with me because you adhere to the school of thought that believes all spiritual tendency and exploration generally stem from ignorance, inability to critically think, lack of education, and fear of the unknown. Right?[/QUOTE]
The last paragraph's off base. After all, I'm a physics major. Many of the greatest physicists are quite religious. From Newton to Hawking, there's a great deal of spirituality in the thoughts I respect most.
With that said, #1 is imprecisely worded, and #2 I can confirm my answer would be yes. To believe otherwise is to believe in the supernatural, which is just another form of faith.
You're using the faith that there is more to us than what we could ever physically understand -- that is, the likes of an unquantifiable soul. Faith in the unquantifiable quality is what you're using to justify belief in another conviction of the unquantifiable.
Essentially, it goes..
You: Humans have a primal need for spirituality, regardless of whether that spirituality is rooted in any sort of observation or rational deduction. Faith is human nature.
Me: Why do you say so? We've seen no evidence of that -- unlike all other aspects of human nature, which are biologically explicable, at least to some extent.
You: The part of human nature that needs faith must be believed in, it cannot be obtained from observation or rational deduction.
Spirituality, in general, requires cyclical logic I suppose...
Trancendental
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 4 (100%)
[quote name='dmaul1114']To inject myself into this debate....
I think spirtuality largely stems from fear of the unknown. I wouldn't label in as ignorant, lacking education etc, there are plenty of extremely intelligent and well educated people who are very religious or otherwise spiritual.
I just think it comes from fearing the unknown, wanting some comfort that we'll see loved ones again after they've passed on, of having some "answer" for where the universe comes from.
And I don't really mean that negatively. While I'm not remotely spiritual, I don't look down on those who are--as long as they're not shoving their beliefs down other's throats anyway.
Whether to be spiritual, and the form that should take, should be totally personal endeavors only shared with those who want to hear it.
I've just never been spiritual. I just never bought the idea of a supreme being, supernatual forces or anything like that. I like hard facts, research, finding what to me are "real" answers. But I respect that others are different and turn to spirituality on some matters. To each their own.[/quote]
As a part-time Jungian I dispute this. It's all about adopting archetypes that help you make sense of the world.
I think spirtuality largely stems from fear of the unknown. I wouldn't label in as ignorant, lacking education etc, there are plenty of extremely intelligent and well educated people who are very religious or otherwise spiritual.
I just think it comes from fearing the unknown, wanting some comfort that we'll see loved ones again after they've passed on, of having some "answer" for where the universe comes from.
And I don't really mean that negatively. While I'm not remotely spiritual, I don't look down on those who are--as long as they're not shoving their beliefs down other's throats anyway.
Whether to be spiritual, and the form that should take, should be totally personal endeavors only shared with those who want to hear it.
I've just never been spiritual. I just never bought the idea of a supreme being, supernatual forces or anything like that. I like hard facts, research, finding what to me are "real" answers. But I respect that others are different and turn to spirituality on some matters. To each their own.[/quote]
As a part-time Jungian I dispute this. It's all about adopting archetypes that help you make sense of the world.
thrustbucket
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 7 (100%)
[quote name='Koggit']
Essentially, it goes..
You: Humans have a primal need for spirituality, regardless of whether that spirituality is rooted in any sort of observation or rational deduction. Faith is human nature.
Me: Why do you say so? We've seen no evidence of that -- unlike all other aspects of human nature, which are biologically explicable, at least to some extent.
You: The part of human nature that needs faith must be believed in, it cannot be obtained from observation or rational deduction.
Spirituality, in general, requires cyclical logic I suppose...[/quote]
Maybe.
Like I alluded in the beginning, it usually is a very cyclical argument. But I am grateful for your patience in discussing it anyway. I enjoy it.
Spiritual experiences, by nature, are something that can't be shown or reproduced for others to witness. Which automatically prevents it from having anything about it scientifically established. That's the beauty of it - it's greatest weakness and strength at the same time. Unlike science, the "evidence" can only be found on an individual basis through individual effort; the results of which can only be experienced by that individual.
The difference between you and me, I think, is that you feel this ultimately invalidates it, or at least makes it inferior to the "cold hard facts" of provable science.
Again, my argument is simply that it is a valid form of "research" to one's understanding of what is, but should be used in conjunction with all other modern tools of discovery. I guess I tend to react sourly to the suggestion otherwise - a weakness, perhaps.
[quote name='crystalklear64']
You are actually a brain parasite that has fused so completely with the human brain that it is assumed that you are a part of the human brain and are undetectable.
Prove this wrong.[/quote]
That's one of the more interesting descriptions for a "soul" or "spirit" that I've ever heard. Kudos!
But I have no means of proving you wrong, anymore than I can prove that the Earth isn't hollow to a friend that believes it is; simply because I've never personally been to the center of the Earth.
I believe constraining one's perceptive tools for understanding reality to only the experiences of the same five senses everyone is born with, is not just limiting, it's bondage.
Essentially, it goes..
You: Humans have a primal need for spirituality, regardless of whether that spirituality is rooted in any sort of observation or rational deduction. Faith is human nature.
Me: Why do you say so? We've seen no evidence of that -- unlike all other aspects of human nature, which are biologically explicable, at least to some extent.
You: The part of human nature that needs faith must be believed in, it cannot be obtained from observation or rational deduction.
Spirituality, in general, requires cyclical logic I suppose...[/quote]
Maybe.
Like I alluded in the beginning, it usually is a very cyclical argument. But I am grateful for your patience in discussing it anyway. I enjoy it.
Spiritual experiences, by nature, are something that can't be shown or reproduced for others to witness. Which automatically prevents it from having anything about it scientifically established. That's the beauty of it - it's greatest weakness and strength at the same time. Unlike science, the "evidence" can only be found on an individual basis through individual effort; the results of which can only be experienced by that individual.
The difference between you and me, I think, is that you feel this ultimately invalidates it, or at least makes it inferior to the "cold hard facts" of provable science.
Again, my argument is simply that it is a valid form of "research" to one's understanding of what is, but should be used in conjunction with all other modern tools of discovery. I guess I tend to react sourly to the suggestion otherwise - a weakness, perhaps.
[quote name='crystalklear64']
You are actually a brain parasite that has fused so completely with the human brain that it is assumed that you are a part of the human brain and are undetectable.
Prove this wrong.[/quote]
That's one of the more interesting descriptions for a "soul" or "spirit" that I've ever heard. Kudos!
But I have no means of proving you wrong, anymore than I can prove that the Earth isn't hollow to a friend that believes it is; simply because I've never personally been to the center of the Earth.
I believe constraining one's perceptive tools for understanding reality to only the experiences of the same five senses everyone is born with, is not just limiting, it's bondage.
"It doesn't take a great leap of faith to imagine science a few thousand years into the future will be very different from what it is today. Down the line, I imagine what we intuitively feel or describe as spiritual will fall into the domain of science, but it will be a type of science that in today's terms we wouldn't recognize at all."
Dean Radin
Dean Radin
“There is no requirement that every statement be a scientific statement. Nor are non-scientific statements worthless or irrational simply because they are not scientific. “She sings beautifully.” “He is a good man.” “I love you.” These are all non-scientific statements that can be of great value. Science is not the only useful way of looking at life.”
William D. Phillips, Nobel Laureate.
William D. Phillips, Nobel Laureate.
A mind is like a parachute… It doesn't work if it's not open.
Frank Zappa
Frank Zappa
My own suspicion is that the universe is not only queerer than we suppose, but queerer than we can suppose.
J.B.S. Haldane
J.B.S. Haldane
The ability to perceive or think differently is more important than the knowledge gained.
David Bohm
David Bohm
thrustbucket
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 7 (100%)
[quote name='camoor']As a part-time Jungian I dispute this. It's all about adopting archetypes that help you make sense of the world.[/QUOTE]
While I have insomnia and am in the quote mood -
Descartes believed the only kind of mind was the conscious mind. Then Freud reinvented the unconscious. Then Jung said it's not just a personal unconscious but a collective unconscious. Morphic resonance shows us that our very souls are connected with those of others and bound up with the world around us.
Rupert Sheldrake, from an interview with Salon (Nov. 23 1999)
While I have insomnia and am in the quote mood -
Descartes believed the only kind of mind was the conscious mind. Then Freud reinvented the unconscious. Then Jung said it's not just a personal unconscious but a collective unconscious. Morphic resonance shows us that our very souls are connected with those of others and bound up with the world around us.
Rupert Sheldrake, from an interview with Salon (Nov. 23 1999)
Thrust, you're not confronting the actual issue at hand with any of that.
My argument is that a person should not ever feel certain of their belief when it isn't based on some form of observation. Observation does not need to be scientific -- it can be self-reflective, such as how you feel. "She sings beautifully" is a great belief, if you actually know anything about the person in question -- it's based on observing how you feel when hearing how she sings. Loving someone, or thinking they're a good person is similar. Those beliefs are typically based on some sort of observation. A more apt apology to spiritualism would be if you were to read the sentence "There was a woman." and then think about whether or not she was a good singer, based only on that limited statement, and arrive at the belief that she sang beautifully. Why would you believe she sang beautifully? There's no evidence for or against it. It's silly to feel confident regarding a belief that isn't based on anything. Strongly believing there's a God, or Gods, etc, whatever, is no different. Strongly believing there is no God is no different either.
If anyone were being closed minded here I would say it's the side choosing to defend their convictions of the unknown.
My argument is that a person should not ever feel certain of their belief when it isn't based on some form of observation. Observation does not need to be scientific -- it can be self-reflective, such as how you feel. "She sings beautifully" is a great belief, if you actually know anything about the person in question -- it's based on observing how you feel when hearing how she sings. Loving someone, or thinking they're a good person is similar. Those beliefs are typically based on some sort of observation. A more apt apology to spiritualism would be if you were to read the sentence "There was a woman." and then think about whether or not she was a good singer, based only on that limited statement, and arrive at the belief that she sang beautifully. Why would you believe she sang beautifully? There's no evidence for or against it. It's silly to feel confident regarding a belief that isn't based on anything. Strongly believing there's a God, or Gods, etc, whatever, is no different. Strongly believing there is no God is no different either.
If anyone were being closed minded here I would say it's the side choosing to defend their convictions of the unknown.
thrustbucket
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 7 (100%)
I didn't say you were closed-minded. I actually feel the opposite. You might want to re-read my post since I edited it heavily, falsely believing nobody else would be awake.
In order to justly respond to you, I consulted dictionary.com for the word "observable":
1. capable of being or liable to be observed; noticeable; visible; discernible: an observable change in attitude.
2. worthy or important enough to be celebrated, followed, or observed: an observable holiday.
3. deserving of attention; noteworthy.
Why do you think spirituality or spiritual experiences are not self-observable? Unless you are convinced spiritual experience is an oxymoron.
[quote name='koggit']My argument is that a person should not ever feel certain of their belief when it isn't based on some form of observation. [/quote]
I agree with that statement, I'm not sure why you think I don't. I'm not defending blind faith without experience or observation.
There is a very large difference between believing something you can't prove (blind faith) and experiencing or observing something you can't prove to peers that possibly caused you to believe or conclude something that you can't prove to peers (which is what I'm talking about).
In order to justly respond to you, I consulted dictionary.com for the word "observable":
1. capable of being or liable to be observed; noticeable; visible; discernible: an observable change in attitude.
2. worthy or important enough to be celebrated, followed, or observed: an observable holiday.
3. deserving of attention; noteworthy.
Why do you think spirituality or spiritual experiences are not self-observable? Unless you are convinced spiritual experience is an oxymoron.
[quote name='koggit']My argument is that a person should not ever feel certain of their belief when it isn't based on some form of observation. [/quote]
I agree with that statement, I'm not sure why you think I don't. I'm not defending blind faith without experience or observation.
There is a very large difference between believing something you can't prove (blind faith) and experiencing or observing something you can't prove to peers that possibly caused you to believe or conclude something that you can't prove to peers (which is what I'm talking about).
I'm doing no such thing. I'm defending anyone and everyone's possible convictions of anything they may claim they have observed or experienced that everyone else might say is unknown.
[quote name='camoor']As a part-time Jungian I dispute this. It's all about adopting archetypes that help you make sense of the world.[/QUOTE]
But you're adopting archetypes to explain the unknown (same as to make sense of the world).
that was more or less my point. I'm not at all familiar with Jung, so I could be missing something I suppose.
I don't adopt archetypes--unless you consider science and archetype.
But you're adopting archetypes to explain the unknown (same as to make sense of the world).
that was more or less my point. I'm not at all familiar with Jung, so I could be missing something I suppose.
I don't adopt archetypes--unless you consider science and archetype.
[quote name='thrustbucket']I didn't say you were closed-minded. I actually feel the opposite. You might want to re-read my post since I edited it heavily, falsely believing nobody else would be awake.[/QUOTE]
Sorry for the misunderstanding, from the quotes I just assumed that you felt I was being closed minded -- it wasn't anything you said.
[quote name='thrustbucket']Why do you think spirituality or spiritual experiences are not self-observable? Unless you are convinced spiritual experience is an oxymoron.[/QUOTE]
This is where the cyclical reasoning comes in. To understand the faith in spirituality, I must understand that the faith is not based on nothing: it's based on something that nobody can ever verify. Belief in that unverifiable something is rooted in faith of spirituality.
What is there to debate? It's like Christians who say they know their God exists because The Bible says he does, and The Bible must be right because it's the infallible word of God. There's no point in taking part in a cyclical argument.
To directly answer your question, I do not strongly believe self-observable experiences are impossible. Neither do I strongly believe they are possible. To take a position one way or the other is, again, to hold a strong belief about the unverifiable. However, I think the former, self-observable experiences do not exist, is more likely. The reason I believe it to be more likely is because we have seen signs of everything else. Everything else, very generally, everything. I find it unlikely that we've witnessed evidence (not necessarily the cause, but evidence of an occurrence) in every single other aspect of life except spirituality. If I told you "A is 3. B is 3. C is 3. D is 3. E is 3. What's F?" How would you answer? I wouldn't expect you to know the answer, but if forced to respond, what would be your best guess? Similarly, if forced to guess whether or not spiritual experiences exist, I would say they don't based on the fact that we have no evidence of them, and evidence of everything else.
As to what these purported "experiences" are... well, I think people often have far too much faith in their own judgment. False memories are extremely common. I, personally, know of two memories I have that aren't from actual events: one involving Santa, another involving my uncle during a Florida vacation. Both are very vivid, and feel exactly the same as every other memory I have, yet I know for a fact that neither is based on actual experiences. There are many other psychological explanations, which I won't get in to because this isn't an important part of this argument, and I feel as though delving too deeply will detract from the issue at hand.
Sorry for the misunderstanding, from the quotes I just assumed that you felt I was being closed minded -- it wasn't anything you said.
[quote name='thrustbucket']Why do you think spirituality or spiritual experiences are not self-observable? Unless you are convinced spiritual experience is an oxymoron.[/QUOTE]
This is where the cyclical reasoning comes in. To understand the faith in spirituality, I must understand that the faith is not based on nothing: it's based on something that nobody can ever verify. Belief in that unverifiable something is rooted in faith of spirituality.
What is there to debate? It's like Christians who say they know their God exists because The Bible says he does, and The Bible must be right because it's the infallible word of God. There's no point in taking part in a cyclical argument.
To directly answer your question, I do not strongly believe self-observable experiences are impossible. Neither do I strongly believe they are possible. To take a position one way or the other is, again, to hold a strong belief about the unverifiable. However, I think the former, self-observable experiences do not exist, is more likely. The reason I believe it to be more likely is because we have seen signs of everything else. Everything else, very generally, everything. I find it unlikely that we've witnessed evidence (not necessarily the cause, but evidence of an occurrence) in every single other aspect of life except spirituality. If I told you "A is 3. B is 3. C is 3. D is 3. E is 3. What's F?" How would you answer? I wouldn't expect you to know the answer, but if forced to respond, what would be your best guess? Similarly, if forced to guess whether or not spiritual experiences exist, I would say they don't based on the fact that we have no evidence of them, and evidence of everything else.
As to what these purported "experiences" are... well, I think people often have far too much faith in their own judgment. False memories are extremely common. I, personally, know of two memories I have that aren't from actual events: one involving Santa, another involving my uncle during a Florida vacation. Both are very vivid, and feel exactly the same as every other memory I have, yet I know for a fact that neither is based on actual experiences. There are many other psychological explanations, which I won't get in to because this isn't an important part of this argument, and I feel as though delving too deeply will detract from the issue at hand.
thrustbucket
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 7 (100%)
Interesting. Thanks for that response Koggit. I just find these types of discussions fascinating (as long as they remain civil, of course).
I'd like to toss you a hypo, if it's cool:
Let's say tomorrow you are walking to your car after work. There is a bright flash of light and you suddenly find yourself in a new environment, let's say it's a spaceship of some kind and their are slightly different looking beings surrounding you. These beings proceed to explain to you that they are from a different dimension. They explain how they have artificially raised you to their vibratory state in order to commune with you, so you will not be able to take anything physical back with you. They then explain and show you how they have been visiting humanity for thousands of years. They show you pictures, diagrams, video, of all the ways they have affected society throughout time. They even explain how they often present themselves as gods in order to motivate and adjust humanity and their course. They explain how many of humans "discoveries" have roots in their own nudging. Most importantly, they explain that usually humans can't even see them or interact with them unless a human raises their own personal vibrations to their level through thought and meditation. They tell you that you are welcome to discuss your experience, but warn you that you'll be seen as crazy by most intellectuals. They then play some cards with you and after about 6 hours tell you it's time to go. You then find yourself outside your car, and no time seems to have passed.
How would you interpret that experience? You obviously can't prove any of it, but it was as real to you as staring at the screen you are now. Do you keep it to yourself? Do you tell people about it? Since there was no witness to corroborate what you experienced, are you bound by reason to assume it was a hallucination of some kind? Should that experience be of any value to you? Without peer-review or proof, does that experience even matter? What do you feel is the right, logical, responsible way to address an experience like that?
(FWIW, I pulled that story out of my ass, mostly)
I'd like to toss you a hypo, if it's cool:
Let's say tomorrow you are walking to your car after work. There is a bright flash of light and you suddenly find yourself in a new environment, let's say it's a spaceship of some kind and their are slightly different looking beings surrounding you. These beings proceed to explain to you that they are from a different dimension. They explain how they have artificially raised you to their vibratory state in order to commune with you, so you will not be able to take anything physical back with you. They then explain and show you how they have been visiting humanity for thousands of years. They show you pictures, diagrams, video, of all the ways they have affected society throughout time. They even explain how they often present themselves as gods in order to motivate and adjust humanity and their course. They explain how many of humans "discoveries" have roots in their own nudging. Most importantly, they explain that usually humans can't even see them or interact with them unless a human raises their own personal vibrations to their level through thought and meditation. They tell you that you are welcome to discuss your experience, but warn you that you'll be seen as crazy by most intellectuals. They then play some cards with you and after about 6 hours tell you it's time to go. You then find yourself outside your car, and no time seems to have passed.
How would you interpret that experience? You obviously can't prove any of it, but it was as real to you as staring at the screen you are now. Do you keep it to yourself? Do you tell people about it? Since there was no witness to corroborate what you experienced, are you bound by reason to assume it was a hallucination of some kind? Should that experience be of any value to you? Without peer-review or proof, does that experience even matter? What do you feel is the right, logical, responsible way to address an experience like that?
(FWIW, I pulled that story out of my ass, mostly)
Trancendental
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 4 (100%)
[quote name='dmaul1114']But you're adopting archetypes to explain the unknown (same as to make sense of the world).
that was more or less my point. I'm not at all familiar with Jung, so I could be missing something I suppose.
I don't adopt archetypes--unless you consider science and archetype.[/quote]
You said it all comes from fear - that's what I really have an issue with.
I used to lean towards scientific athiesm. I don't think I'll ever believe in the dubious feel-good parts of mainstream Abrahamic religion like a heaven complete with buddy jesus, 32 virgins, and magic ponies that fart rainbows - for the masses these castles in the sky are the carrot and hellfire is the stick (and I would think that hellfire is an example of fear you refer to)
For me it was a mixture of curiousity and experimentation that drove me to be more interested in the metaphysical. I really wasn't trying to explain anything - I have a basic knowledge of the physics of the universe, and that's good enough for me. I wanted to delve into the unknown, through the looking glass.
"The Whisperer in Darkness", H.P. Lovecraft
that was more or less my point. I'm not at all familiar with Jung, so I could be missing something I suppose.
I don't adopt archetypes--unless you consider science and archetype.[/quote]
You said it all comes from fear - that's what I really have an issue with.
I used to lean towards scientific athiesm. I don't think I'll ever believe in the dubious feel-good parts of mainstream Abrahamic religion like a heaven complete with buddy jesus, 32 virgins, and magic ponies that fart rainbows - for the masses these castles in the sky are the carrot and hellfire is the stick (and I would think that hellfire is an example of fear you refer to)
For me it was a mixture of curiousity and experimentation that drove me to be more interested in the metaphysical. I really wasn't trying to explain anything - I have a basic knowledge of the physics of the universe, and that's good enough for me. I wanted to delve into the unknown, through the looking glass.
"The Whisperer in Darkness", H.P. Lovecraft
bread's done