The comfort of the ever morphing spiritual belief.

[dshimel]

My wife has this amorphous spiritual belief. Sort of Paganism and sort of Budhism, and lots of other "sort-of"s mixed in.

At the base of her beleif is that there is a higher existance where our souls exist. Our souls seek to experience everything there is to know. We're repeatedly born into bodies to experience different things. Life experiences are "mostly" predetermined, so that our spirits know which body to be born into based on what expereinces we need. Everything happens for a reason, sort-of.

She also believes in a type of natural magic. That spells and incantations can be used to modify the energy flow and slightly alter what happens to you, but than there is a whiplash of bad things to put things back into balance. For example, perhaps John Ritter cast a spell to get a hit TV show again, and the payback was his death.

So, a baby dieing is becuase it had expereinced all it needed to expereince, and the mom needed to expereince the loss. Seems like a great coping mechanism to me....

So I say, I guess we shouldn't try to stop rapists. Afterall, the spirits in the women they are raping knew this would happen to them, and choose to be born into that body because thery needed to expereince it. If the rapist is screwing with the energy flow of predetermism, then the energy flow itself will correct and cause bad things to happen to the rapist. In fact, a murderer is just freeing a spirit that must have expereinced all it needed to expereince, or it would not have chosen to be born into that body. The grieving relatives must have needed to expereince the grief, or their spirits would not have choosen to be born in to those bodies knowing this was going to happen. Besides, even if the spirit wasn't meant to die yet, no loss. It can just be reborn into another body to finish expereincing whatever it needed to expereince.

This ended "not well". It was one of those times where even if you win a debat, you lose.

As our knowledge of the physical world expands, and the room for a finite, well-defined God shrinks, I expect we'll see more and more of these amorphous "gods".

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by dshimel

As our knowledge of the physical world expands, and the room for a finite, well-defined God shrinks, I expect we'll see more and more of these amorphous "gods". Unless of course if we don't destroy the world first which, is the way it seems to be headed. ;)

Perhaps we may need religion (more along the lines of the Native American Indian perhaps?) to teach us how to get back to nature? As far as I'm concerned all this rampant materialism sucks!

[Ellis14]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Perhaps we may need religion (more along the lines of the Native American Indian perhaps?) to teach us how to get back to nature? As far as I'm concerned all this rampant materialism sucks!
After saying this, you need to:

1. Demonstrate why religion places more emphasis on the "natural".

2. Explain why something "natural" is necessarily better than something "unnatural".

3. Offer evidence that there is any other substance in existence apart from the material or empirical.

Maybe you should start a new thread an attempt to explain these claims of yours.

Anyway, back to the thead. The simple question I would ask with someone who is insistent on believing in supernatural forces and believes of reincartion, souls, spells, incantations. energy, spirit etc is, how do you know?

It's a simple question that they can't answer.
At the base of her beleif is that there is a higher existance where our souls exist.
How does she know this?
Our souls seek to experience everything there is to know.
How does she know this?
Life experiences are "mostly" predetermined, so that our spirits know which body to be born into based on what expereinces we need. Everything happens for a reason, sort-of.
How does she know this? Where did she get this information?
So, a baby dieing is becuase it had expereinced all it needed to expereince, and the mom needed to experience the loss. Seems like a great coping mechanism to me...
How does she know this?
So I say, I guess we shouldn't try to stop rapists. Afterall, the spirits in the women they are raping knew this would happen to them, and choose to be born into that body because thery needed to expereince it. If the rapist is screwing with the energy flow of predetermism, then the energy flow itself will correct and cause bad things to happen to the rapist. In fact, a murderer is just freeing a spirit that must have expereinced all it needed to expereince, or it would not have chosen to be born into that body. The grieving relatives must have needed to expereince the grief, or their spirits would not have choosen to be born in to those bodies knowing this was going to happen. Besides, even if the spirit wasn't meant to die yet, no loss. It can just be reborn into another body to finish expereincing whatever it needed to expereince.
How does she know this? Where did she find this out? By what method did she discover all this information and how did she prove it to herself? Is it something that she can prove to others?

Of course the simple answer to all these questions, is no. Everyone has their own personal metaphysical notions, some are whacky, some are rational. Some are more plausible than others, and many are mutually-exclusive. Self-delusion? Wishful-thinking? Probably. Comforting? Yes. And that's why people hold spiritual beliefs; for no other reason other than they want to.

[dshimel]

Originally posted by Ellis10

Anyway, back to the thead. The simple question I would ask with someone who is insistent on believing in supernatural forces and believes of reincartion, souls, spells, incantations. energy, spirit etc is, how do you know?

She quickly admits there is no evidence to base any of her beliefs on. She believes what she believes because "it works for her". That is, it is a cool story that she hopes is ture, and accepts as true because it feels good.

She uses a modified "Pascal's Wager".

"If I'm on the other side when you cross over, I'll say 'told you so'. If you're right, you'll never get the chance to tell me 'told you so'."

[pope fiction]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Unless of course if we don't destroy the world first which, is the way it seems to be headed. ;)

Perhaps we may need religion (more along the lines of the Native American Indian perhaps?) to teach us how to get back to nature? As far as I'm concerned all this rampant materialism sucks!

Oh yeah? Throw out your computer then.

We shouldn't need religion for anything. If humans had a strong enough will, they could behave like they should and hold morals just to be good humans, not to satisfy something that doesn't exist.

[rad]

If humans had a strong enough will,

They do seem to have a strong will, to do everything historians have told them not to, even though they think it is morally right to do so. I know what you mean, but the problem is not so simple when we cannot even agree on what "moral" is. It's not like we all agree with for example, John Adam's religious morals, is it? Far from it in fact.

Rad

[pope fiction]

Originally posted by rad
They do seem to have a strong will, to do everything historians have told them not to, even though they think it is morally right to do so.

What are you saying here?

To the point: I think there can be a comfortable compromise of what "moral" is. There are too many radical and fundamental people out there though. This doesn't have anything to do with needing a religion though.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by pope fiction

Oh yeah? Throw out your computer then.

We shouldn't need religion for anything. If humans had a strong enough will, they could behave like they should and hold morals just to be good humans, not to satisfy something that doesn't exist. Scotsman fallacy. What right do you have to define what the correct use of religion is? ;)

[Simiangrunt]

It is very difficult debating sensitive issues with people close to you. What's the saying? You can talk to anyone, except on the topics of religion and politics. If there is a discussion, then one must be careful. The reductio ad absurdums (like with the rapist example) would have worked for me, but may have been interpreted as insensitive to your wife (you mentioned that the discussion didn't end well). You also mentioned that her beliefs are based solely on emotion. Well, in this case, there is probably no use in debating. However, one must ask here what the difference would be between holding a belief like hers vs. not holding a belief like hers. That is, if there are really no discernible consequences or required behaviors if her beliefs are followed, then just leave it be. You did know that she held these beliefs when you married her, didn't you? ;)

[dshimel]

Re-reading what I wrote, I don't think I made my point well. I'll try again.

Back at the dawn of civilization, myth systems (religions) had fairly well defined "gods" with pretty specific attributes. Whether it be the petty gods of Olympus which battled each other, the God of the Old testiment that lived above the sky dome, Ra the Sun God, or any of the other ancient beliefs they had physical form and set properties.

This gave way to the New Testiment, Budhist, Islamic, etc. non-corporal "spirituality". There was a level of "mystery". God is removed from the physical world, but still has a fairly fixed set of properties.

Today, we move from a God with fixed set of properties, toward a more esoteric "energy flow". Some pagans consider each of these energies "gods". It doesn't matter if you're celebrating Ostera , Ra, Venus, or J.R.R. Tolkien's Valar, they're all just representations of the same energy flow.

Many Christians have even moved from the literal God of the Bble, to a more esoteric "the lord works in mysterious ways" beyond comprehension type God. Once convinced the earth is only 5000-10,000 years old and that all creatuers were created by God, fully formed, at the same time, the Catholic church now considers evolution an interesting theory and a possible mechanism through which God created man over time.

Maybe it is the crowd I hang with or maybe it is a significant movement, but what I'm now seeing is a rapidly morphing, ill defined "spirituality" replacing the more dogmatic religions.

My wife is the perfect example. While she has this very eastern inspired belief of pre-determination and reincarnated souls seeking to experience everything to acheive higher enlightenment, she has heavily mixed this with western paganism of energy flows and magic.

It seems very conforting to be able to redefine your beliefs at will, to fit whatever situation you find yourself in. Someone you love dies, then there must be some purpose and gain from it. Someone does something bad to you, and they are creating negative energy that will come back on them. Something bad happens, then they must have done something to deserve it. Random events occur, and you get to think that you can predict them.

[pope fiction]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Scotsman fallacy. What right do you have to define what the correct use of religion is? ;)
Ohh? Tell me, what do you use it for?

[Yahzi]

Originally posted by dshimel
She quickly admits there is no evidence to base any of her beliefs on. She believes what she believes because "it works for her".
Religion is a way of coping with other people's pain. On the plus side, your wife is a compassionate person, because she needs a fairy tale to help her cope with the staggering amount of suffering other people keep dumping on her.

When you point out things like murder and rape, you are penetrating her defenses, and forcing her to accept and deal with the suffering of others. The fact that she gets mad shows that her defenses are not overwhelming. Given a real tragedy, she will respond normally. It's the thousands of remote acts of evil that she hears about every day she can't cope with. And who can, really?

I don't think religion is a very good way to cope with other people's suffering, but the fact that your wife's beliefs are so amphorous and pliable indicates that her coping mechanism is healthy. It's when it becomes rigid and inflexible that the coping mechanism becomes more of a problem than a solution.

[Yahzi]

Originally posted by dshimel
Back at the dawn of civilization, myth systems (religions) had fairly well defined "gods" with pretty specific attributes.
Incorrect. The concrete definitions most of us attribute to the old pagan gods stems from our historical perspective and desire to stuff things into tidy boxes. D&D (the game) and Tolkien, for instance, have established very concrete meanings for the words troll, orc, and goblin: while in actual historical usage, they were all interchangable.

Ancient people's views of their gods were just as plastic as modern people's. It is only when the religion dies, and becomes a history of culture instead of a living, breathing culture, that this rigor mortis sets in.

You might think that classical Christianity seems awfully rigid, and you would be right: Joseph Cambell once described it as "dead," for this very reason. In any case, you can easily see that even Fundy Christians and Catholics routinely re-interpret the Bible to meet current needs.

[dshimel]

Originally posted by Yahzi

Ancient people's views of their gods were just as plastic as modern people's. It is only when the religion dies, and becomes a history of culture instead of a living, breathing culture, that this rigor mortis sets in.

For ancient peoples, (G/g)od(s) explained thunder and lightning and wind and rain and drought and seasons and waves and earthquakes and volcanoes and a whole host of other physical phenomena. For (G/g)od(s) to do these physical things, things, they had to by physical beings living in the physical world.

When people began to move about, seeing beyond the horizon of their home, God was moved from the physical to the spiritual. Still, dogmatic spiritual God came with a lot of assumptions that have been shown false, and now people flee to amorphic spirituality.


BTW: It is likely Goblins were inspired by people suffering from Progeria. Orc is pure Tolkien invention.... A twisting of the word Elf into Erk into Orc to signify that Orcs were Elfs twisted to darkness by Morgoth.

[Yahzi]

Originally posted by dshimel
For (G/g)od(s) to do these physical things, things, they had to by physical beings living in the physical world.
Ancient people were not invariably less sophisticated than we are. The Greeks understood the concept of immateriality just fine.

Unless by ancient you really meant pre-historic, but then, we don't have any history on them, do we?

BTW: It is likely Goblins were inspired by people suffering from Progeria. Orc is pure Tolkien invention.... A twisting of the word Elf into Erk into Orc to signify that Orcs were Elfs twisted to darkness by Morgoth.

'...the word is as far as I am concerned actually derived from Old English orc 'demon', but only because of its phonetic suitability...'
The Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien No 144, dated 1953

http://www.glyphweb.com/arda/default.htm?http://www.glyphweb.com/arda/o/orcs.html


I suggest you give history another go before you write off the people of the past as simple-minded, dull, uncreative, or intellectually challenged.

[rad]

I think there can be a comfortable compromise of what "moral" is.

But I suspect you would only be comfortable with gays breaking laws and people you disagree with, like Judge Moore, obeying them all. That's the problem PF, I don't think there's much hope of a compromise.

Rad

[dshimel]

Originally posted by Yahzi
I suggest you give history another go before you write off the people of the past as simple-minded, dull, uncreative, or intellectually challenged.

I never did any such thing.

People have used, and still use, religion to explain things they don't understand. In ancient times, people did not have understanding of physical things like floods, earthquake, thunder and lightning. Gods were physical beings causing physical things.

As man's understanding of the world grew, God was removed from the physical world to a spiritual world. No longer the cause of lightning, now God was the source of morality and fortune.

We're not now smarter or more createive than ancient humans. We just have a better understanding of the universe. God is being further removed from dogmatic intelligent ultimate judge of morality and determinate of fate to a more amorphic "energy".

[Ojuice5001]

Originally posted by dshimel
Gods were physical beings doing physical things.

As man's understanding of the world grew, God was removed from the physical world to a spiritual world. No longer the cause of lightning, now God was the source of morality and fortune.


I think that, by the evidence we have, it's just as likely that the gods started out as "the source of morality and fortune." For one thing, look at the Mediterranean in the sixth century BCE. In Italy, people thought of the gods as being "numina," nonphysical presences that infused the world. The Greeks were more culturally advanced, and the idea that the gods were physical beings in the physical world was more common among them. There have been plenty of uneducated cultures (native Hawaii, New Guinea, etc.) that saw the gods as being invisible beings that influence luck and have connections to the social order, just like I and others like me do today. That could be the way the first theists saw things; that's more likely than your scenario.

Which ancient polytheistic cultures have gotten this idea that the gods are visible and act in this kind of direct physical way? The most familiar examples of this are the Greeks, Norse, Egyptians, and Aztecs. I'm inclined to think the explaining factor is large population. I don't think the idea of a physical god originated in order to make the gods a better explanation of things. More likely the reason was that priests could better control a large population with an impressive god that someone could visualize. A general emphasis on sculpture and other visual arts might give people this idea too. Isn't that the Abrahamic party-line explanation of why graven images are a bad thing?

God is being further removed from dogmatic intelligent ultimate judge of morality and determinate of fate to a more amorphic "energy."

Spirituality as "energy," the gods as rulers of our fate, deism, etc., have all been common in numerous cultures, with very different levels of understanding of physics. The idea of gods with bodies is perhaps the only god-concept that has really been disproved, and there is no real indication that it was the earliest. The "spiritual energy" described in the OP is not a new idea; in fact, it's one of the oldest. It's increasing in popularity, but I would think that the cause of this is the waning influence of Christian theology--not the fact that some old paradigm is being discredited by physics.

[Yahzi]

Originally posted by dshimel
God is being further removed from dogmatic intelligent ultimate judge of morality and determinate of fate to a more amorphic "energy".
Perhaps in some broad, general sense, meaning that more people today think of God as an amorphic force than they did yesterday. If that is what you are trying to say, I agree.

But the fact is, there were numerous people in the past who thought of god(s) that way, and there are numerous people today who think of god(s) in concrete, physical terms. The average might be changing, but the extremes have not.

[dshimel]

Originally posted by Ojuice5001
There have been plenty of uneducated cultures (native Hawaii, New Guinea, etc.) that saw the gods as being invisible beings that influence luck and have connections to the social order,

While invisable, the gods of Hawaiian culture were still male and female and had sex to create more gods. They lived on earth, ate, drank, slept..... They had very physical characteristics.


Originally posted by Ojuice5001
Which ancient polytheistic cultures have gotten this idea that the gods are visible and act in this kind of direct physical way? The most familiar examples of this are the Greeks, Norse, Egyptians, and Aztecs.

Early Hebrew, thus influincing Judiasm and Christianity to today. The God of Genisis was a physical being that lived above the sky dome.

This, of course, was also influenced by Babylonian myths of "sea monster" dragon type gods. The earth was the belly of a sea monster god, floating in a vast ocean.

Chineese dragon spirits were very physical beings, most likely inspired by the discovery of dinosaur bones.

The Native American thunderbird was very physical, as were the evil spirits that lived in limestone caves around the country.

Originally posted by Ojuice5001
I'm inclined to think the explaining factor is large population. I don't think the idea of a physical god originated in order to make the gods a better explanation of things. More likely the reason was that priests could better control a large population with an impressive god that someone could visualize.

Interesting. Still, these "visualizable" gods were drivien out of the physical world, and are being driven out of the spiritual world, being replaced by more amorphic views.

[dshimel]

Originally posted by Yahzi
Perhaps in some broad, general sense, meaning that more people today think of God as an amorphic force than they did yesterday. If that is what you are trying to say, I agree.

But the fact is, there were numerous people in the past who thought of god(s) that way, and there are numerous people today who think of god(s) in concrete, physical terms. The average might be changing, but the extremes have not.

There are still people that think the world is flat because the Bible says so. They are considered "nuts" by the main stream.

Pagans were considered "nuts" 15-20 years ago, but are now a mainstrean in the 30 and under crowd.

I'm not talking about the exteremes, as there will always be people that are considered "nuts" by the mainstream. I'm talking about the "mainstream". I see a flow of people from Dogmatic Christianity, to a far more amorphic "spirituality".

This amorphic spirituality is MUCH harder to debate against. My arms may be too short to box with God, but I have NO chance of fighting with the wind.

However, there is still a TOTAL lack of evidence to believe in it. I think it is just as damaging to the individual and society as a dogmatic religion, just harder to fight.

[Ojuice5001]

Dshimel,

Good point. I might answer with C.S. Lewis's explanation of the situation. He basically says that ancient man didn't draw a sharp distinction between spiritual beings and material ones. They couldn't have come up with a non-material spirit as we think of it. But equally, their thoughts of matter were prone to give it "spiritual" qualities. (And Hawaii was an especially good example of this. I even think that they were onto something with their concept of "mana.")

So yes, the ancients thought of their gods in a physical way, and this way of thinking can fairly be said to be discredited by science. (Not to the extent of thinking that the gods can't be in control of our fate or connected to society, but obviously we can no longer believe that a god personally moves the sun across the sky.) But the underlying issue is that they either didn't ask, or had a wrong answer for, the question, "What kind of thing is matter?" Science certainly sheds a lot of light on this question, but the job was begun by the natural philosophers before it.

[pope fiction]

Originally posted by rad
But I suspect you would only be comfortable with gays breaking laws and people you disagree with, like Judge Moore, obeying them all. That's the problem PF, I don't think there's much hope of a compromise.

Rad
Can you make more sense of that?