SairB Posted March 8, 2012 Share Posted March 8, 2012 I've noticed recently a bit of a backlash in some media circles against the so-called 'New Atheists'. I'm not sure if this started with the publication of Alain de Botton's Religion for Atheists - actually, I think de Botton's book just provided an opportunity for journalists coming late to the party, looking for what they thought would be a novel angle on the culture war between religion and unbelief - but I think this backlash is slightly different from what we've seen previously. Before, there was certainly plenty of criticism of Dawkins and Hitchens and co, but mostly for being 'strident' and taking an unapologetic and uncompromising position on religion and the tacit (and sometimes overt) yet largely undeserved respect it has been accorded for most of our history. Lately, the backlash has taken on a subtly but obviously different flavour, and articles such as this are appearing claiming that religion really does offer something that can't be found in a secular, atheistic approach to life; as well as gleefully pillorying the likes of Dawkins for their 'hardline', 'narrow', 'simplistic', even 'fundamentalist' take on the world. Again, it's hard to say whether de Botton's book influenced this or cashed in on it (I suspect the latter) but maybe he really is on to something - maybe we do need to take the best bits of religions and elbow all the supernaturalist crud that goes along with them. Unfortunately, those who have taken up the pen in support of this more generous approach to religion appear to want to reinstate that tacit acceptance of religion that has been so effectively and brutally exposed to the harsh light of day by the New Atheists. My problem with this is twofold - on the one hand, the so-called 'best bits' of religion almost invariably come with the excess baggage; and on the other, it potentially creates a false sense of camaraderie between the believers and the non-believers. Whilst I'm a fan of the live-and-let-live philosophy, and of its close cousin, the first-do-no-harm philosophy, most organised religions - especially the two youngest of the monotheisms - are, at their root, fundamentally opposed to these. The supposed 'best bits' of religion appear to be (yes, I must admit I haven't read de Botton's book, although I did watch his TED talk on YouTube) a sense of wonder and transcendence at being part of something larger than onesself, inspiration to think beyond the everyday, and the sense of community and solidarity a shared belief can provide. I'm all for these things, but I think they can be accomplished without any accompanying bullshitting. The major religions might provide the 'best bits', but they also provide the bullshit in bucketloads. What good is a sense of transcendence and awe if it comes from belief in something which, despite plenty of effort, has never been unequivocally and reliably demonstrated to exist? What good does it do us, really, to suppose that our value comes from the favour of a supernatural being rather than our innate sense of kinship and connection with each other (which, admittedly, is very easy to obscure, especially when religion gets involved)? Why place the needs and desires of an undemonstrable being above our own and those of other physical entities, rather than looking at the real world and making our judgements based on evidence, inference and consequences? Why not be inspired by something that is real, tangible, readily available to our experience - rather than something that is claimed to be so far beyond our understanding that we'll only 'get it' after we die? Why not derive a feeling of solidarity from recognition of our common humanity and our shared evolutionary history with other animals, rather than from being hoodwinked into believing that we are the 'chosen people' of a trumped-up tribal deity? I do think the 'best bits' of religion are readily available to unbelievers. We just have to realise that they don't need to come from beyond what we can already know and experience. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Antlerman Posted March 8, 2012 Share Posted March 8, 2012 If you don't mind, I've moved this topic to the Colosseum as it is a very well written and thoughtful topic worthy of a place for serious discussion. I will be adding my own thoughts to this shortly as time permits. You raise excellent points and it's my hope this will be a strong discussion topic for everyone interested in this as you are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Antlerman Posted March 8, 2012 Share Posted March 8, 2012 My problem with this is twofold - on the one hand, the so-called 'best bits' of religion almost invariably come with the excess baggage; and on the other, it potentially creates a false sense of camaraderie between the believers and the non-believers. Whilst I'm a fan of the live-and-let-live philosophy, and of its close cousin, the first-do-no-harm philosophy, most organised religions - especially the two youngest of the monotheisms - are, at their root, fundamentally opposed to these. There are many points in your OP that I wish I had time now to address, but I'll toss this out there quickly to provoke some thought. I think it is a misnomer from extreme forms of postmodernism that to acknowledge truth in something makes it of equal value. I'll put it this way. I believe in a heterarchy, that the same thing exists as itself in all experiences, but I also believe in hierarchy. In heterarchy, the experience of "Spirit" or the spiritual as it were, is the same universally, whether that is the most advanced Yogi, or your common ground squirrel, or your mythic-believer Christian. It is the same no matter what level. However, the depth of that experience will vary based upon the mind's development in hierarchical stages or levels of growth. The experience of Spirit for a child of six who connects to the Universe inside himself through the World outside himself will process that in his mind with such understanding as "The sky and the clouds were happy with me!! They smiled at me!". The Christian will say "God sent his Holy Spirit to bless me". The mystic will say, "I am one with the Universe, and God within". Heterarchy and hierarchy. Same essence, different depth and different value. For me, I cannot function at the child's mythological way of understanding the world, such as is portrayed in the evolving Bible. But it doesn't mean the Christian does not have valid experience (at least those few who have any experience that transcends their structures). The positive I see with atheism is that it advances reason and rationality, which is good and necessary in our evolution, by breaking apart the mythic structures of our historical past to help move us into a rational worldspace. Rightly so. The negative, is that it throws out the baby with the bathwater. It is unable to separate out genuine and valid spiritual experience from mythical structures. It therefore fails as a valid system of reason. It fails Reason itself. Atheism in the modern context instead becomes more a radical iconoclasm, a smashing of the old idols without any sort of integral vision of the future. I would say that atheism is a minor tool at best. It should not ignorantly seek the destruction of spirituality (which it cannot), but of the old mythic structures the spiritual in is unfortunately still currently tied to it. (There are reasons that is so). But atheism itself has no ultimate vision of human experience for a future, which of necessity must include what has existed and does exist within it from the beginning. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legion Posted March 8, 2012 Share Posted March 8, 2012 In my opinion we must not allow religious people to appropriate the word 'faith' for their sole use. We must retake the word, and return it to a more foundational meaning. Faith is believing something for which there is no known proof. I have faith. No, not in gods. I believe without any known proof that relations of entailment exist between phenomena, and that through these relations nature is bound with itself in a complex web of causality. And among the things I think of here are Thich Nhat Hanh and his near poetic writings on pratitya-sumutpada. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted March 8, 2012 Share Posted March 8, 2012 Faith is believing something for which there is no known proof. Just to add, not to contradict... The way I use and think of the word "faith" is trust. Fundamentally it means to trust something or someone. And it fits quite well in how it's used in religion as well. Having faith in God just means trust God. Having faith in the Bible is the same as trusting the contents, truths, or whatever, in the Bible. It's a form of belief, and we all have beliefs and trusts in things (faith). I believe without any known proof that relations of entailment exist between phenomena, and that through these relations nature is bound with itself in a complex web of causality. And among the things I think of here are Thich Nhat Hanh and his near poetic writings on pratitya-sumutpada. Agree. We can trust reality to be just that. We can have faith in the world being. The word "faith" has become too synonymous with "religious faith." And it makes discussion more difficult. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legion Posted March 8, 2012 Share Posted March 8, 2012 Good additions all, in my opinion Hans. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rev R Posted March 8, 2012 Share Posted March 8, 2012 I do think the 'best bits' of religion are readily available to unbelievers. These best bits are what precisely? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Antlerman Posted March 8, 2012 Share Posted March 8, 2012 Faith is believing something for which there is no known proof. Just to add, not to contradict... The way I use and think of the word "faith" is trust. Fundamentally it means to trust something or someone. And it fits quite well in how it's used in religion as well. Having faith in God just means trust God. Having faith in the Bible is the same as trusting the contents, truths, or whatever, in the Bible. It's a form of belief, and we all have beliefs and trusts in things (faith). I believe without any known proof that relations of entailment exist between phenomena, and that through these relations nature is bound with itself in a complex web of causality. And among the things I think of here are Thich Nhat Hanh and his near poetic writings on pratitya-sumutpada. Agree. We can trust reality to be just that. We can have faith in the world being. The word "faith" has become too synonymous with "religious faith." And it makes discussion more difficult. I don't want to get too sidetracking in this topic on a discussion of the word faith, but I will say that I believe there is a difference between faith used in the colloquial sense of belief and trust, i.e., I have faith my car will get me from point A to point B, and Faith in a religious sense of Faith in God. The terms faith and belief get interchanged a lot even within religious contexts, but I will maintain that faith in the capital F sense of the word is more that of an intuition of something that goes beyond mere reasoning, and hence any rational reason to 'trust' something. It is a non-rational sense of knowing, and the trust is in that sense, or in that Faith. To add, this is also distinct from any sort of cognitive dissonance that still insists on belief in any thing or object or teaching, when there is direct, overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Faith in the religious sense, the strictly religious sense, is trusting in an intuition not based on reason. Therefore, 'evidence' that challenges any ideas about God is met more with a 'so-what' attitude. It's not faith in the idea or the belief. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted March 8, 2012 Share Posted March 8, 2012 I don't want to get too sidetracking in this topic on a discussion of the word faith, but I will say that I believe there is a difference between faith used in the colloquial sense of belief and trust, i.e., I have faith my car will get me from point A to point B, and Faith in a religious sense of Faith in God. The terms faith and belief get interchanged a lot even within religious contexts, but I will maintain that faith in the capital F sense of the word is more that of an intuition of something that defies reasoning, and hence any rational reason to 'trust' something. It is a non-rational sense of knowing, and the trust is in that sense, or in that Faith. Yes, but the foundation for the word "faith", both in colloquial use and in religion, is the concept of trust. A "strong belief" is a form of trust, to trust something to be true, even without the evidence for it to be true as a fact. Knowing something to be true isn't the same as having faith or believing something to be true. Having trust in someone or something usually comes from a history of experience, but it still comes down to believing. If a person constantly show to me that he or she is trustworthy, means that I trust the person to continue to be so, but can I know it for a fact? Not always. People can change or circumstance might cause them to act differently. So faith and trust are in the end a belief of very similar kind. mid-13c., "duty of fulfilling one's trust," from O.Fr. feid, foi "faith, belief, trust, confidence, pledge," from L. fides "trust, faith, confidence, reliance, credence, belief," from root offidere "to trust," from PIE root *bheidh- (cf. Gk. pistis; see bid). For sense evolution, see belief. Theological sense is from late 14c.; religions called faiths since c.1300. Source: http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=faith Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legion Posted March 8, 2012 Share Posted March 8, 2012 I think trust is a very relevant thing to us today. I also believe that apparent irrationality is also relevant. I suspect that men and women are capable of genuine irrationality and self-negation, but I believe nature is capable of expressing rationally accessible paradox. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Antlerman Posted March 8, 2012 Share Posted March 8, 2012 I don't want to get too sidetracking in this topic on a discussion of the word faith, but I will say that I believe there is a difference between faith used in the colloquial sense of belief and trust, i.e., I have faith my car will get me from point A to point B, and Faith in a religious sense of Faith in God. The terms faith and belief get interchanged a lot even within religious contexts, but I will maintain that faith in the capital F sense of the word is more that of an intuition of something that defies reasoning, and hence any rational reason to 'trust' something. It is a non-rational sense of knowing, and the trust is in that sense, or in that Faith. Yes, but the foundation for the word "faith", both in colloquial use and in religion, is the concept of trust. A "strong belief" is a form of trust, to trust something to be true, even without the evidence for it to be true as a fact. Knowing something to be true isn't the same as having faith or believing something to be true. Having trust in someone or something usually comes from a history of experience, but it still comes down to believing. If a person constantly show to me that he or she is trustworthy, means that I trust the person to continue to be so, but can I know it for a fact? Not always. People can change or circumstance might cause them to act differently. So faith and trust are in the end a belief of very similar kind. Again, this is the colloquial use of the terms. I agree it is applied to religion as well, because to be blunt, most people in religion don't have religious Faith. They are 'evidence-based' believers. This is why you have so much cognitive dissonance when the beliefs are challenged. They have faith or trust in their reasoned beliefs. Faith in the truly religious or spiritual sense is not dependent on reason or patterns of trust that they place their faith in. Again, it is in fact a valid term to use in a, I should now start using the term instead, "spiritual" sense. If someone has a genuine spiritual faith, it is able to deal with challenges or changes to beliefs because they are not what the faith is placed in. It is not some track record, evidence, or trustworthiness in the beliefs about the object of that faith, but in the unknown and unconceived. Rather it is a trust in the internal sense. That is not cognitive. I care little for quoting dictionaries as to limit meaning of words. The word is used that way and applied that way, even though it is rarer because of the domination of what is called faith in religion, which is in fact more in the colloquial sense. It is of little surprise the dictionary cites it that way. It is not authoritative because words are dynamic, not static. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted March 8, 2012 Share Posted March 8, 2012 Again, this is the colloquial use of the terms. I agree it is applied to religion as well, because to be blunt, most people in religion don't have religious Faith. They are 'evidence-based' believers. This is why you have so much cognitive dissonance when the beliefs are challenged. They have faith or truth in their reasoned beliefs. Faith in the truly religious or spiritual sense is not dependent on reason or patterns of trust that they place their faith in. Again, it is in fact a valid term to use in a, I should now start using the term instead, "spiritual" sense. If someone have a genuine faith, it is able to deal with challenges or changes to beliefs because they are not what the faith is placed in. It is not some track record, evidence, or trustworthiness of the object of faith. Rather a trust in the internal sense. That is not cognitive. I'm not arguing that the word can't be used or that it's invalid in any sense. I'm with Legion that the word needs to be understood in a larger sense than just the religious sense, which is the case nowadays. When someone is using the word "faith", most people think of it in the religious way, not the colloquial. I care little for quoting dictionaries as to limit meaning of words. The word is used that way and applied that way, even though it is rarer because of the domination of what is called faith in religion, which is in fact more in the colloquial sense. It is of little surprise the dictionary cites it that way. It is not authoritative because words are dynamic, not static. I wasn't citing the dictionary but the etymology of the word. Of course we can redefine the word in society and move it away from its original meaning, but I still think of it (both colloquial and religious) in the more basic form. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legion Posted March 8, 2012 Share Posted March 8, 2012 I'm with Legion... Do you need anything more here A-man? Hans is with me. Game over. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted March 8, 2012 Share Posted March 8, 2012 Do you need anything more here A-man? Hans is with me. Game over. We are legion! ("great in numbers" if I'm allowed to quote the dictionary.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Antlerman Posted March 8, 2012 Share Posted March 8, 2012 Again, this is the colloquial use of the terms. I agree it is applied to religion as well, because to be blunt, most people in religion don't have religious Faith. They are 'evidence-based' believers. This is why you have so much cognitive dissonance when the beliefs are challenged. They have faith or truth in their reasoned beliefs. Faith in the truly religious or spiritual sense is not dependent on reason or patterns of trust that they place their faith in. Again, it is in fact a valid term to use in a, I should now start using the term instead, "spiritual" sense. If someone have a genuine faith, it is able to deal with challenges or changes to beliefs because they are not what the faith is placed in. It is not some track record, evidence, or trustworthiness of the object of faith. Rather a trust in the internal sense. That is not cognitive. I'm not arguing that the word can't be used or that it's invalid in any sense. I'm with Legion that the word needs to be understood in a larger sense than just the religious sense, which is the case nowadays. When someone is using the word "faith", most people think of it in the religious way, not the colloquial. Which, again, is largely colloquial as well. Again, not to get too sidetracked on this, but it does make a point. It is like saying spirituality equals belief in mythological entities, the supernatural realm of ghosts and gods. But there is a valid spiritual sense of the word faith that is NOT mere belief. If we are to argue that it is the same, then religion in fact can be replaced by science and reason, which I flatly reject. In a truly spiritual sense of faith, which goes beyond reason - not against it - it has a value that no other system of belief offers, which takes us right back to the OP in this thread. Again, I agree the terms get interchanged so much that to the so-called 'non-believer', or skeptic, or atheist, that faith is in fact evidence-based. And as such, clearly myth has got to take the back seat! But it is my contention that there is a human spiritual 'faith' in a non-evidence, non-cognitive, and non-rational sense that inuits "God", or Spirit, or whatever transcendent symbol you wish to call "That". That sense of faith is in fact beyond any belief systems. And that is something internal to humans in that heterachical sense I mentioned in my first post in this thread. It is experienced all the way down and all the way up, and is only replaced through direct experience with that which was intuited. The value then is to recognizing the difference and dialoging on that. See? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legion Posted March 8, 2012 Share Posted March 8, 2012 Do you need anything more here A-man? Hans is with me. Game over. We are legion! Yeah, we are the Ouroboros! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Antlerman Posted March 8, 2012 Share Posted March 8, 2012 Do you need anything more here A-man? Hans is with me. Game over. We are legion! Yeah, we are the Ouroboros! You are a snake eating its own tail. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legion Posted March 8, 2012 Share Posted March 8, 2012 Do you need anything more here A-man? Hans is with me. Game over. We are legion! Yeah, we are the Ouroboros! You are a snake eating its own tail. We are the many cycles of renewal. We are the many manifestations of paradox beyond the grasp of the intellect. We are the living. I need to make myself a sammich. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted March 8, 2012 Share Posted March 8, 2012 Which, again, is largely colloquial as well. Again, not to get too sidetracked on this, but it does make a point. It is like saying spirituality equals belief in mythological entities, the supernatural realm of ghosts and gods. But there is a valid spiritual sense of the word faith that is NOT mere belief. If we are to argue that it is the same, then religion in fact can be replaced by science and reason, which I flatly reject. In a truly spiritual sense of faith, which goes beyond reason - not against it - it has a value that no other system of belief offers, which takes us right back to the OP in this thread. Again, I agree the terms get interchanged so much that to the so-called 'non-believer', or skeptic, or atheist, that faith is in fact evidence-based. And as such, clearly myth has got to take the back seat! But it is my contention that there is a human spiritual 'faith' in a non-evidence, non-cognitive, and non-rational sense that inuits "God", or Spirit, or whatever transcendent symbol you wish to call "That". That sense of faith is in fact beyond any belief systems. And that is something internal to humans in that heterachical sense I mentioned in my first post in this thread. It is experienced all the way down and all the way up, and is only replaced through direct experience with that which was intuited. The value then is to recognizing the difference and dialoging on that. See? I'm not sure what you're getting at. Faith as being beyond facts, reason, experience, and facts? So faith is more than anything else that we have? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Antlerman Posted March 8, 2012 Share Posted March 8, 2012 Which, again, is largely colloquial as well. Again, not to get too sidetracked on this, but it does make a point. It is like saying spirituality equals belief in mythological entities, the supernatural realm of ghosts and gods. But there is a valid spiritual sense of the word faith that is NOT mere belief. If we are to argue that it is the same, then religion in fact can be replaced by science and reason, which I flatly reject. In a truly spiritual sense of faith, which goes beyond reason - not against it - it has a value that no other system of belief offers, which takes us right back to the OP in this thread. Again, I agree the terms get interchanged so much that to the so-called 'non-believer', or skeptic, or atheist, that faith is in fact evidence-based. And as such, clearly myth has got to take the back seat! But it is my contention that there is a human spiritual 'faith' in a non-evidence, non-cognitive, and non-rational sense that inuits "God", or Spirit, or whatever transcendent symbol you wish to call "That". That sense of faith is in fact beyond any belief systems. And that is something internal to humans in that heterachical sense I mentioned in my first post in this thread. It is experienced all the way down and all the way up, and is only replaced through direct experience with that which was intuited. The value then is to recognizing the difference and dialoging on that. See? I'm not sure what you're getting at. Faith as being beyond facts, reason, experience, and facts? So faith is more than anything else that we have? I didn't say that. Back to my first post in this thread where I touched on heterarchy and hierarchy. At any given level of understanding you have support structures that help you navigate that landscape. These are belief systems, worldviews, language systems, etc. As a child of 8 you have a certain set that works for 8 year olds. As a teen you have a different set. Now apply this to adults in an average-mode consciousness, a mode of thought that applies to the general population. There are structures in place to support that average mode consciousness. Those structures have changed over history as our general average-mode consciousness as a species has evolved. What we had prior to the Enlightenment in the 1700's was a general mythic-mode of looking at the world. Myth structures were the supporting system, gods and supernatural forces controlled the cosmos and our individual fates. Prior to this in was magic-modes of understanding the world, forces controlled by unseen threads connected to our own selves. There were structures in place to support this mode of consciousness, rites, rituals, etc. Now in an average-mode consciousness that generally sees the world in rational structures, we have systems of belief that support this, until the next shift comes along, etc. Now faith is something in all these levels that intuits something beyond those structures. Not a new higher structure per se', not a new average-mode consciousness, but the existence of what is undefinable in its very essence. It is an existential awareness of something that transcends all beliefs, all systems, all knowledge, all reasoning and rational understanding. But no, faith itself is not above everything we have, because it is itself an intuition, not an apprehension. The apprehension of what faith intuits is what is beyond all beliefs and understanding. It is the existential Self. It is all Truth, without being any one thing. It is a state of conscious awareness not bound to any thought or model of mind. That's what is beyond faith. Faith is only a sense, a pull, a draw, an internal 'force' for lack of a better word. It is not the Goal and itself does not offer knowledge. This is the other use of faith. So you can see, it is not belief in anything other than the yet unrealized. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
par4dcourse Posted March 8, 2012 Share Posted March 8, 2012 Antlerman, I read Sair's post and your response with great interest. My question to you would be, what indicates that your experiences are progressing in spiritual nature rather than incrementally learning the workings of your own mind? Sair touched on this too, and I apologize if it's old territory. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted March 8, 2012 Share Posted March 8, 2012 I didn't say that. Back to my first post in this thread where I touched on heterarchy and hierarchy. At any given level of understanding you have support structures that help you navigate that landscape. These are belief systems, worldviews, language systems, etc. As a child of 8 you have a certain set that works for 8 year olds. As a teen you have a different set. Now apply this to adults in an average-mode consciousness, a mode of thought that applies to the general population. There are structures in place to support that average mode consciousness. Those structures have changed over history as our general average-mode consciousness as a species has evolved. Ooo'kay... What we had prior to the Enlightenment in the 1700's was a general mythic-mode of looking at the world. Myth structures were the supporting system, gods and supernatural forces controlled the cosmos and our individual fates. Prior to this in was magic-modes of understanding the world, forces controlled by unseen threads connected to our own selves. There were structures in place to support this mode of consciousness, rites, rituals, etc. Now in an average-mode consciousness that generally sees the world in rational structures, we have systems of belief that support this, until the next shift comes along, etc. Ok... Now faith is something in all these levels that intuits something beyond those structures. So the word "faith" can be replace by "intuition beyond established and know structures of consciousness"? Not a new higher structure per se', not a new average-mode consciousness, but the existence of what is undefinable in its very essence. It is an existential awareness of something that transcends all beliefs, all systems, all knowledge, all reasoning and rational understanding. But no, faith itself is not above everything we have, because it is itself an intuition, not an apprehension. The apprehension of what faith intuits is what is beyond all beliefs and understanding. How does "faith" intuit? Is faith the same as a function of consciousness, so when "faith intuits" it's some kind of meta-consciousness in function? It is the existential Self. It is all Truth, without being any one thing. It is a state of conscious awareness not bound to any thought or model of mind. That's what is beyond faith. Faith is only a sense, a pull, a draw, an internal 'force' for lack of a better word. It is not the Goal and itself does not offer knowledge. This is the other use of faith. So you can see, it is not belief in anything other than the yet unrealized. But your argument was against that it was a form of belief? I'm not sure I follow. Faith is a form of belief, but it's not? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Antlerman Posted March 8, 2012 Share Posted March 8, 2012 Antlerman, I read Sair's post and your response with great interest. My question to you would be, what indicates that your experiences are progressing in spiritual nature rather than incrementally learning the workings of your own mind? Sair touched on this too, and I apologize if it's old territory. I'm happy to address a question like this. I think this comes to defining why you would call something spiritual, as distinct from other areas of our experience of reality. I make a distinction between the material, the mental, and the spiritual in human experience. They are categorically different, even though there is naturally an interpentration of the domains. Obviously the material can affect the mental, and vise versa, and the spiritual can affect the mental and the physical as well. What makes mind something different than biology is that of experience level and modes of understanding what transpires within that domain. The mental is an experience of reality we interface with in symbol sets. We interface with a framework of reality created by language, when we come to 'think' about it with the cognitive structures of the mind. Our very sense of self, our ego, is itself such a construct of symbols. We think about our 'self' and identify ourselves with those frameworks. This is very different than simply experiencing reality as a biological sack of skin, responding to physical urges and drives - hunger, fear, mating, survival, etc. We understand those aspects of our ourselves differently than understanding our psychological makeup. What makes the spiritual distinct from the mental is that it is not a symbolic construct like the self, or ego. It is not defined by those, nor created by those. Here's where it gets a bit tricky. I believe that our minds open into the ground-unconscious, which is what is inherent in all living things (and likely the inanimate as well), the potentials of all higher realization exist within this. From this there is our inherited archaic-unconscious, which all animals have. It is our primal awakening as a living form. From this there is the embedded-conscious which is where we identify our sense of being, in our case egoic mind. Then there is the emergent-conscious, which is our yet unrealized potentials, drawing us into higher awareness. What spiritual experience and awareness is, is seeing both before and beyond the structures of symbolic mind into both the ground and the summit of conscious awareness. It first opens to our archaic nature, who we are on this planet, our part of the world as a whole, and into the emergent unconscious, what our unrealized potentials are. In spiritual experience, the latter can, but not limited to, take the form of symbolic archetypes, a god form which we identify with. How this differs from the mental domain is that it does not use those those mental frameworks we call reality. It accesses reality outside mental frameworks. It differs from the material because the experience is not sensory in nature, sight, smell, touch, etc. It is understood internally. It is the direct awareness of ourselves as part of the world and the highest unrealized potentials. It is not something defined as any object, but as being itself. It is Self, beyond self. It is categorically different than the material or the mental, and to penetrate that domain, neither the tools of the material nor mental can be used. You have to peel away all those structures into reality beyond and before them. Is it experienced within the mind? Of course. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
agnosticator Posted March 9, 2012 Share Posted March 9, 2012 The supposed 'best bits' of religion appear to be (yes, I must admit I haven't read de Botton's book, although I did watch his TED talk on YouTube) a sense of wonder and transcendence at being part of something larger than onesself, inspiration to think beyond the everyday, and the sense of community and solidarity a shared belief can provide. I'm all for these things, but I think they can be accomplished without any accompanying bullshitting........ I do think the 'best bits' of religion are readily available to unbelievers. We just have to realise that they don't need to come from beyond what we can already know and experience. SairB, your OP is very well thought out. I'd only add that religion stumbles when it organizes and/or becomes an institution. Then power, control, and all the negatives really come into play. The problem is, how do we share beliefs within a community without falling into this trap, when the majority of people are unthinking sheep? They tend to look for leaders who will tell them what to believe and how to think. Secular Humanism (Council for Secular Humanism) and Naturalistic Pantheists (World Pantheism) have formed groups for the same reasons stated in your OP, but they are small groups with limited appeal. Although, that's fine by me. Both groups attract people who are smart and know themselves, unlike the sheep! IOW, there is no mass appeal for the good bits. The sheep bleat for the bullshit that goes with it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
par4dcourse Posted March 9, 2012 Share Posted March 9, 2012 Interesting. I study bio-chemistry and psychology (when I'm not otherwise occupied being a smartass) to gain some of the same understandings. I think we are actually hunting the same beast with different weapons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts