Science And Religion Aren't Friends

[Antlerman]

Vixen do you believe it's possible for a person to be a spiritual atheist? This person has no gods, no belief in superfluous supernatural hocus-pocus, no interest in reincarnation, no pagan spells and rituals, no over-riding fluffy bunny feelings. They only have a recognition and deep appreciation for the interconnectedness of all things. Do you believe that's possible?

This is an excellent question to pose.

[DesertBob]

Except Buddhism is rife with godlings, magical beasts and such.

Buddhism at its core, as posited by Buddha, had little or nothing of such things; it knows of and teaches no god. It arose out of Hindu society and some forms of Buddhism today reflect what are essentially adaptations of Hindu mythology but that is the normal process of people mixing things together over time. I've always seen Buddhism at its heart as a philosophical system, an early framework of psychology.

 

In any case, what the east has always understood better than the west is that you can speak of gods as metaphors or archetypes without believing they literally exist "out there". Westerners confuse symbols and imagery with reality because we take everything literally.

[DesertBob]

Vixen do you believe it's possible for a person to be a spiritual atheist? This person has no gods, no belief in superfluous supernatural hocus-pocus, no interest in reincarnation, no pagan spells and rituals, no over-riding fluffy bunny feelings. They only have a recognition and deep appreciation for the interconnectedness of all things. Do you believe that's possible?

I think it's quite possible -- judging from their posts, some here have so much resistance to spirituality that they don't even recognize "the interconnectedness of all things". (Actually I don't see why that recognition wouldn't itself be a spiritual belief, even if you kept the gods out of it).

 

I think this resistance comes from the way certain practices like Christianity over literalize and distort spiritual ideas, destroying their inherent value.

 

All that said, what would true "spiritual atheism" look like? Would it not have to reject anything that can't be quantified and measured as a physical thing -- would it not have to reject love, or any other nonrational response to reality? At the end of the day a true "spiritual atheist" would be like Mr. Spock from Star Trek -- but even that character would have had no entertainment value if he were not conflicted within, if there were not emotional impulses warring to get through.

 

We pride ourselves on being rational beings, but it's only relatively true; we aren't and can't be entirely rational, and we have to deal with that part of ourselves that intuits, feels, and senses but whose mind cannot 100% validate all its intuitions, feelings and hunches.

 

I was always tempted to think that my mind was the main event, with emotions and intuitions buzzing around like pesky flies that needed killing. These days I recognize that both my mind and my heart have their place, but I'm damned if I can organize them usefully on any given day.

[Rev R]

Buddhism at its core, as posited by Buddha, had little or nothing of such things; it knows of and teaches no god.

 

Buddhism teaches no creator god. There are Pali texts that do treat devas and such as real, however these beings are as susceptible to craving and delusion as humanity. Even with that said, there are no requirements of worship of any beings.

 

 

It arose out of Hindu society and some forms of Buddhism today reflect what are essentially adaptations of Hindu mythology but that is the normal process of people mixing things together over time.

 

To an extent, but this neglects the native religions of China, Japan, and Tibet which lent their unique cultural aspects to the teachings. For example, Zen is as much Taoism as it is Buddhism.

 

 

I've always seen Buddhism at its heart as a philosophical system, an early framework of psychology.

 

Indeed, it could be said that Buddhist cosmology could be considered a diagram of the mind. If I recall correctly this is part and parcel of the vajrayana school of thought.

 

In any case, what the east has always understood better than the west is that you can speak of gods as metaphors or archetypes without believing they literally exist "out there". Westerners confuse symbols and imagery with reality because we take everything literally.

 

I think this is due to the fact that almost all Buddhists in the West are converts from religions where such things are meant to be taken literally. That's not to say that these things are not taken literally in the East, though.

 

One of the problems I see with Buddhism in the West is because of its relative newness, the practice simply copies Asian tradition. Again, using Zen as an example, most centers keep rather strictly to Japanese tradition. The Dharma has not had enough time to develop into a tradition unique to the West. The tools are there and the flower is beginning to bud with the support of folks like Steven Batchelor and Sam Harris, but there is a certain amount of resistance to what some have begun calling "atheist Buddhism".

[Deva]

In Tibet, Buddhism was an overlay to the native Bon religion. In modern times Bon is almost identical with Buddhism, so we don't know much about it. Shamanism and local deities were involved - these were translated to Bodhisattvas and what we call Dharmapalas or Dharma protectors. We have nothing like it here in our modern western culture. Probably it comes closest to Native American religion or the genius loci of the Roman religion. The Hindu Gods are also recognized - Indra, mainly and probably others. This obviously came over from India. I wonder what form Buddhism will be in here in the U.S. in, say, 400 years. I do not believe these obviously Tibetan forms will remain, being isolated from the country and the place in which they developed.. but who knows?

 

I see we are way of the subject of the OP but the conversation seems to be drifting into Buddhism.

[Rev R]

In Tibet, Buddhism was an overlay to the native Bon religion. In modern times Bon is almost identical with Buddhism, so we don't know much about it. Shamanism and local deities were involved - these were translated to Bodhisattvas and what we call Dharmapalas or Dharma protectors. We have nothing like it here in our modern western culture. Probably it comes closest to Native American religion or the genius loci of the Roman religion. The Hindu Gods are also recognized - Indra, mainly and probably others. This obviously came over from India. I wonder what form Buddhism will be in here in the U.S. in, say, 400 years. I do not believe these obviously Tibetan forms will remain, being isolated from the country and the place in which they developed.. but who knows?

 

I see we are way of the subject of the OP but the conversation seems to be drifting into Buddhism.

 

The undercurrent is change though. Through the example of Buddhism we see how a religion can and does change with time. I think the current state of Buddhism in the West is a prime example of the mentality required for a religious/ spiritual model to embrace and support reason and science.

 

The other side of the coin is fundamentalist thinking which fights against and demonizes reason.

 

In a sense it's like life, only those forms which can readily adapt will survive.

[Vixentrox]

Vixen do you believe it's possible for a person to be a spiritual atheist? This person has no gods, no belief in superfluous supernatural hocus-pocus, no interest in reincarnation, no pagan spells and rituals, no over-riding fluffy bunny feelings. They only have a recognition and deep appreciation for the interconnectedness of all things. Do you believe that's possible?

I think the very word spiritual belies belief in "spirits". I don't think spiritual is a very good term for this. Yes, I believe we are all interconnected in some way, at the atomic level. The same atoms that compose of our bodies are the same ones that were shit out of Roman slaves 2000 years ago.

[Vixentrox]

Thanks for sharing your experience, Deva. It's good to hear about these kinds of experiences that would theoretically be available to an atheist (technically agnostic) like me.

 

Phanta

 

I think they absolutely could apply to atheists. I am not myself an atheist, but they certainly could. No belief in god is really necessary.

Except Buddhism is rife with godlings, magical beasts and such.

 

It may be rife with them, but it is not ABOUT them-- its about the mind. These "godlings" and other "magical beings" are not necessarily to be understood literally as beings "out there". Its not a requirement to believe in those things. You just can't seem to grasp that. Also, there are many forms of Buddhism.

Pick and choose, pick and choose. Something we accuse Christians of isn't it?

[florduh]

Vixen do you believe it's possible for a person to be a spiritual atheist? This person has no gods, no belief in superfluous supernatural hocus-pocus, no interest in reincarnation, no pagan spells and rituals, no over-riding fluffy bunny feelings. They only have a recognition and deep appreciation for the interconnectedness of all things. Do you believe that's possible?

I can't speak for Vix, but it's such a good question.

 

That everything is interconnected seems hard to miss. The farther one takes the idea the more mind boggling it becomes. Some might experience this realization as awe or give it a spiritual label. It is simply observable reality and logical conclusions to me. Sometimes a person could go a bit farther and start to imagine that since things are all connected, an action or thought "here" will cause a physical change "there." That is not observable reality and has moved into the realm of magic, but it doesn't have to be so. We can have an awesome, inspiring (spiritual?) reality without adding anything at all.

[Deva]

Pick and choose, pick and choose. Something we accuse Christians of isn't it?

 

Of course Christians pick and choose. The only ones who don't realize that are the fundamentalists. What's really wrong with picking and choosing? I don't have a problem with it. I concede that in certain cases (psychology not all being the same) that Christianity can be a benefit to a person. I have seen living examples.

[Antlerman]

Vixen do you believe it's possible for a person to be a spiritual atheist? This person has no gods, no belief in superfluous supernatural hocus-pocus, no interest in reincarnation, no pagan spells and rituals, no over-riding fluffy bunny feelings. They only have a recognition and deep appreciation for the interconnectedness of all things. Do you believe that's possible?

I can't speak for Vix, but it's such a good question.

 

That everything is interconnected seems hard to miss. The farther one takes the idea the more mind boggling it becomes. Some might experience this realization as awe or give it a spiritual label. It is simply observable reality and logical conclusions to me. Sometimes a person could go a bit farther and start to imagine that since things are all connected, an action or thought "here" will cause a physical change "there." That is not observable reality and has moved into the realm of magic, but it doesn't have to be so. We can have an awesome, inspiring (spiritual?) reality without adding anything at all.

This is not merely a mental recognition of these relationships, but primarily an experiential one that is a realization that comes through a deep introspective understanding. That awareness and experience is not simply a recognition and response of technical facts, but an existential sense of greater being beyond what our perception of the objective world alone tells us is so.

 

That science is coming to understand this now after it has long already been said this is so, in fact shows that 'religion' and science are not at odds with each other. It's not until more recently that things like the Complexity Sciences shows the holistic nature of things, that dynamic systems theory shows the relationships and the non-reductionist nature of emergent properties, etc. Yet, that we are ONE, not just in matters of the physical, material world, but that there is an deeper and higher fabric of consciousness has been held and embraced by the religious long before science began seeing it.

 

The only conflict that exists really is calling symbols that express these things, scientific fact. When I say God, you would say "prove it!". When I say consciousness, you wouldn't. All this is about is deeper degrees and depths of that inner awareness. Your tendency appears to be to discount and push that all aside in favor of what you think you can "trust" - current scientific evidence. Embrace science, but without worshiping it. Also learn to trust yourself and listen to that.

 

And that is the scary and most difficult part, and why people turn to religion or science to be told what to believe. Easy to trust someone else, or so the illusion is to us. To go in where all illusions fall, is terrifying to most. Much easier to find a religion of some sort, be that mythical or material in nature.

[DesertBob]

And that is the scary and most difficult part, and why people turn to religion or science to be told what to believe. Easy to trust someone else, or so the illusion is to us. To go in where all illusions fall, is terrifying to most. Much easier to find a religion of some sort, be that mythical or material in nature.

"Going where all illusions fail" is not necessarily an act of courage ... it can be an act of desperation, like the poor fuck who dove off the Deepwater Horizon into the burning sea to trade certain incineration for probable incineration.

 

I regard Florduh's affection for empirical data to itself be an illusion. I don't even trust that much. That sort of inherently takes me where "illusions fail". I can't in good conscience advise him to go there. If reductionism is working for him, hooray for him!

[florduh]

Yet, that we are ONE, not just in matters of the physical, material world, but that there is an deeper and higher fabric of consciousness has been held and embraced by the religious long before science began seeing it.

I still haven't seen or experienced any evidence of this "higher fabric of consciousness" but will look into it if evidence should come my way.

 

And that is the scary and most difficult part, and why people turn to religion or science to be told what to believe.

I think that's an invalid generalization. Religion certainly tells people what to believe. Science demonstrates and proves what is detectable in our universe. A scientific fact is just that, something demonstrably true. A religious "fact" is an unsupported belief, often at odds with other religious "facts."

[Guest end3]

I thought the last prayer test experiment showed the opposite. Those who were prayed for got worse than those who didn't. Maybe I remember it wrong...

If you believe in prayer and know you are being prayed for, it can have a placebo effect. Those who were unknowingly prayed for (in at least one experiment) had a statistically insignificant worse outcome than those patients left out of the prayer circles.

 

I think the interaction/relationship is important to the manifestation of the effect. When I hear someone has been praying for me vs. them praying for me without me knowing, has a different effect. This would tend to remove God from the process, unless you consider we are standing in His place at the moment.

[Guest end3]

The sense I get is that prayer can't have that calming effect for many (most?) who don't have some supernatural belief. It certainly doesn't work for me, and I don't know of any atheists for whom it works. (I'd love to hear from atheists who can successfully get that benefit from prayer, though, because I would love to get in on it!) So, in that sense, supernatural belief is rewarded in the natural functioning of their brains simply by focusing an action around an extraordinary belief.

 

Well P. I can't speak for Christian prayers, but I don't believe in Amida or in any after death Pure Land, yet the nembutsu- namu amida butsu roughly translated: "homage to Amida Buddha"- works very well for calming and centering. There again, I adopted the practice as a non-supernatural means from the onset.

 

If I recall what I read correctly, it is the highly ritualized prayers (ie, Hail Mary or Our Father) that have the soothing effect.

 

I used to, and still do, say the Lord's prayer in my head over and over as a centering/calming thing before I had ever heard of centering.....fwiw.

[Guest end3]

Thanks for sharing your experience, Deva. It's good to hear about these kinds of experiences that would theoretically be available to an atheist (technically agnostic) like me.

 

Phanta

 

I think they absolutely could apply to atheists. I am not myself an atheist, but they certainly could. No belief in god is really necessary.

Except Buddhism is rife with godlings, magical beasts and such.

 

It may be rife with them, but it is not ABOUT them-- its about the mind. These "godlings" and other "magical beings" are not necessarily to be understood literally as beings "out there". Its not a requirement to believe in those things. You just can't seem to grasp that. Also, there are many forms of Buddhism.

Pick and choose, pick and choose. Something we accuse Christians of isn't it?

 

Hear, hear!

[Deva]

Hear, hear!

 

What does that mean, and why have you been ignoring me lately?

[Guest end3]

Hear, hear!

 

What does that mean, and why have you been ignoring me lately?

 

Hear, hear meaning "Yes,yes"! I was just teasing with y'all Ms. D. I should have used and smiley emoticon.

 

I missed posting an answer to you in the other thread. It was not intentional. It just will take a little sit down time. My internet has been blinking in and out....we had a thunderstorm this morning that re-aimed the antenna for me. I just finished exiting the roof and here I am. I shall sit down in a bit and address your question. It wasn't intentional Ms. D.....just hard to sit down and relate.

[DesertBob]

I used to, and still do, say the Lord's prayer in my head over and over as a centering/calming thing before I had ever heard of centering.....fwiw.

Reciting a memorized prayer is the same basic principle as, say, a Buddhist chanting a mantra. Nothing mysterious about it and the content as such doesn't really matter. I have an annoying tendency to chew on my shirt collar when in deep thought. Bill Gates used to rock rhythmically back and forth in his chair, although I'm given to understand he's been housebroken over the years :-) So there are less dignified things than recited prayers, to be sure. These things are a way to channel and release anxiety and calm the mind. Whatever works!

[Guest end3]

I used to, and still do, say the Lord's prayer in my head over and over as a centering/calming thing before I had ever heard of centering.....fwiw.

Reciting a memorized prayer is the same basic principle as, say, a Buddhist chanting a mantra. Nothing mysterious about it and the content as such doesn't really matter. I have an annoying tendency to chew on my shirt collar when in deep thought. Bill Gates used to rock rhythmically back and forth in his chair, although I'm given to understand he's been housebroken over the years :-) So there are less dignified things than recited prayers, to be sure. These things are a way to channel and release anxiety and calm the mind. Whatever works!

 

Sounds right to me.

[Ouroboros]

I used to, and still do, say the Lord's prayer in my head over and over as a centering/calming thing before I had ever heard of centering.....fwiw.

Reciting a memorized prayer is the same basic principle as, say, a Buddhist chanting a mantra. Nothing mysterious about it and the content as such doesn't really matter. I have an annoying tendency to chew on my shirt collar when in deep thought. Bill Gates used to rock rhythmically back and forth in his chair, although I'm given to understand he's been housebroken over the years :-) So there are less dignified things than recited prayers, to be sure. These things are a way to channel and release anxiety and calm the mind. Whatever works!

My trigger is the phrase "what if?"

 

When I think about something where I'm not sure how to solve it or how to approach it, I say this phrase. It's just a reflex and there's no planning to it. It just comes out. Unfortunately, after the "what if," I rarely have much more to say.

[Legion]

I sing.

 

ALL IS ONE!

[Deva]

I sing.

 

ALL IS ONE!

 

It really is, Legion, and if you really go into this and meditate on the interconnectedness of everything - a total change in your whole orientation to life happens.

[DesertBob]

My trigger is the phrase "what if?"

 

When I think about something where I'm not sure how to solve it or how to approach it, I say this phrase. It's just a reflex and there's no planning to it. It just comes out. Unfortunately, after the "what if," I rarely have much more to say.

LOL ... yeah there is that little problem.

 

I have heard of other trigger phases. A shrink acquaintance I once knew was fond of asking patients (or anyone else confiding some sort of inferiority or inadequacy feeling), "who told you that??" They can get you thinking outside the boxes you make for yourself.

[DesertBob]

... if you really go into this and meditate on the interconnectedness of everything - a total change in your whole orientation to life happens.

I don't mean to be a curmudgeon, but ... so what? It's all interconnected, or it's not ... it doesn't change what is and whether I find it satisfactory.

 

I guess people who groove on this are trying to say that this lends meaning of some kind to one's existence, or lessens one's loneliness or emptiness. It has the opposite effect on me, making everything seem stuck in a giant unalterable matrix. That would be great if I liked the matrix in the first place, I guess.

 

That said, any port in a storm, and I'm glad it works for anyone.