The search...

All-in-all it's more important for you to know your own state of mind than for you to know the "correct" label for it.Well, knowing a "correct label" for my state of mind, which I am quite cognoscente of, would seem to be the trump suit, right?More like "the icing on the cake", IMO. This my sound wholly ignorant of me, but I tend not be much of a reader. Not that don't enjoy others' ideas, but I prefer to digest the spoken word Sounds like a very common difference in preference; not like ignorance at all. rather than a manifesto type 'thing'. Introspective and examination books tend to read like stereo instructions and that doesn't interest me. Also, they often times only give me insight into that particular authors perspective, with little to no help in understanding my own."How the Mind Works" isn't a manifesto and isn't introspective. It's more encyclopedic, I guess. It describes many of the experiments run to back up many of the statements it repeats; experiments involving EEGs, involving timing a person on tasks and comparing those times depending on whether or not they were simultaneously trying to solve some related or unrelated task (or had just solved a related or unrelated task); experiments comparing humans to other animals; experiments comparing adults to children and so on; experiments comparing people with specific brain-injuries to "normal" people; experiments comparing people with sensory anomalies to "normal" people; and so on. Maybe it will still read like a stereo manual; or maybe not. My advice would be, if you read it, skim over the part about vision very quickly; it's impressively complete but mostly you don't need that completeness to understand the book's main points. OTOH "the Blank Slate, the Noble Savage, and the Ghost in the Machine" is a manifesto and is about Pinker's (and others') point(s)-of-view. Certain people on the "other side" had made vicious and damaging ad-hominem attacks against people Pinker sided with (actually there were also ad-hominem attacks against Pinker himself, but they weren't especially damaging), and part of the book is a defense. In particular he spends a lot of the book showing that many people have claimed relativism is scientifically proven and anything else is scientifically incorrect, when in fact they are just guessing and ignoring evidence. (BTW the people who attacked Napoleon Chagnon not only were lying; they didn't even understand what he was saying. They thought a "dominant gene" meant a gene for dominance! rather than a gene that would mask the expression of a recessive gene.) Maybe I'm reading the wrong books.They should either be fun to read, or make you glad you read them afterwards; otherwise, yes, they're the wrong ones. (IMNSHO). For me to judge God is, I think, less arrogant of me, than for God to judge me is arrogant for Him.I find this difficult to respond to without acknowledging your "God", but what the hell is the difference who judges whom when no one has ever given you concrete evidence of the consequences?This may be more interesting to me (and maybe to God) than to any third parties. I'm a little vague on which consequences you mean. I think there is concrete evidence of the consequences of morality and of immorality. But there are no consequences of my judging God, and as you say no concrete evidence of any consequences of Him judging me. I've had a rocky relationship with God the past 28 or 29 years. Consider; If you told a companion of your youth "I think I might be happier if you didn't exist", wouldn't that tend to indicate some kind of falling-out between you? Or if you told him "I'm no longer certain you exist", wouldn't that tend to indicate that, at the very least, you'd lost touch with each other? But each particular resentment I have against God depends on my believing something I was taught about Him during my first 26 or 27 years. If God does exist, and does love me, and wants me to love Him, and all my resentments are based on misunderstandings, He could explain to me that some of the things I was taught about Him during my youth just aren't so, and that would probably patch things up between us. (So, of course, the fact that He hasn't done so, weighs (however lightly) in favor of "He doesn't exist, or, He doesn't love me, or, He doesn't want me to love Him".) If God isn't the author or judge of morality and doesn't care one way or the other about morality, then He won't see the point in judging me and won't care a fig whether or not I judge Him. But if He is, and He loves me (and the rest of us), and wants me (and the rest of us) to love Him, then He owes me (and the rest of us) some explanations. I think a lot of the ideas I threw out in my earlier post(s?) would be such explanations (if they were true).

I think there is concrete evidence of the consequences of morality and of immorality. Imposed by whom? I think a lot of the ideas I threw out in my earlier post(s?) would be such explanations (if they were true). The boldness (added by me) is my main issue. Ultimate truth, not interpreted by a pharaoh, prophet, messiah et al... I can't believe in the unseen, unfelt, unheard...unknown.

I think there is concrete evidence of the consequences of morality and of immorality.Imposed by whom?You mean, who "imposes" the morality? Or who imposes the consequences? The consequences I'm concerned with just naturally happen IME; no-one imposes them unless someone made up the rules by which the Universe operates (in which case we might as well call that someone "God"). As for "who decides what's moral", in the absence of any better candidate I have elected myself. I think a lot of the ideas I threw out in my earlier post(s?) would be such explanations (if they were true).The boldness (added by me) is my main issue. Ultimate truth, not interpreted by a pharaoh, prophet, messiah et al...Yes, I don't seriously entertain most of them as significant possibilities. I can't believe in the unseen, unfelt, unheard...unknown.Well, I can; otherwise I'd have absolutely no confidence that turning on a light switch would actually illuminate the room. But, nevertheless "there is no God" seems to me to be the least complicated explanation of everything.

The consequences I'm concerned with just naturally happen... So, how do you know why they happen? Yes, I don't seriously entertain most of them as significant possibilities. So, your concept of "God" is completely independent of any other? Well, I can; otherwise I'd have absolutely no confidence that turning on a light switch would actually illuminate the room. I would imagine that your confidence in the light switch illuminating the room comes from experiencing more than once in the past...and before that having an adult show you / do it in front of you... How can you say the same for an invisible man in the sky which others have only ever claimed to have seen?

So, how do you know why they happen?I don't know why they happen, I only know that they tend to happen. So, your concept of "God" is completely independent of any other?No, it at least bears a "family resemblence", as Wittgenstein said, with most of them. It may be logically connected with one or more of them as well, but I can't guarantee that it is logically connected with most of them (nor, really, that it isn't). I would imagine that your confidence in the light switch illuminating the room comes from experiencing more than once in the past...and before that having an adult show you / do it in front of you...But it's still confidence in something invisible. How can you say the same for an invisible man in the sky which others have only ever claimed to have seen?I don't know for sure that I could; but in any case I don't. There are, however, other unseen things in which I do have confidence; among these are the germ theory of disease. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- What kinds of things are you looking for? In your OP you said, I have recently felt a need to improve my spiritual life, .... , I find myself missing something...not fully satisfied, nor understanding this need that seems to peek at me daily from behind some very hidden place. .... What do you need? What are you missing? What would satisfy you?

But it's still confidence in something invisible. So you can't see the switch or the light that it operates? There are, however, other unseen things in which I do have confidence; among these are the germ theory of disease. Perhaps because you've been sick, or known someone who has...hardly an adequate metaphor... What kinds of things are you looking for? Well, not to be too aggressive, but if I knew that I wouldn't really have started the thread, y'know? What do you need? What are you missing? What would satisfy you? See above.

But it's still confidence in something invisible.So you can't see the switch or the light that it operates?I can't see the electricity, or the current, or the electrons, or even the power-generator. ... germ ...Perhaps because you've been sick, or known someone who has...hardly an adequate metaphor...Maybe I'm being dense. Or you are. Or we both are. (Or otherwise we are "talking past each other" somehow.) What did you mean when you saidI can't believe in the unseen, unfelt, unheard...unknown. What kinds of things are you looking for? What do you need? What are you missing? What would satisfy you?Well, not to be too aggressive, but if I knew that I wouldn't really have started the thread, y'know?If you can give us any kind of a better hint, I will be better able to respond. What kinds of things are going on when you feel you are missing something, or need something, or are unsatisfied? At those times, what kinds of things are happening, or being done by you or others, or being said by you or others? At those times, what are you typically thinking just before and/or just after feeling unsatisfied or needy or that you are missing something? See, I'm not sure what you want would necessarily have anything to do with any deities or any spirits other than those currently in a living human body. I am not sure what "spiritual" means to you; even if your notion of "spiritual" includes God or gods or angels or life-after-death or reincarnation as a major part, perhaps that's not what you meant when you said you wanted more in your spiritual life. (Sorry, I can't quote your exact words at the moment. Looking at what I can see it seems to be "I have recently felt a need to improve my spiritual life, ... I find myself missing something...not fully satisfied, nor understanding this need that seems to peek at me daily from behind some very hidden place. ... not much seems to satisfy the need ... for ... non-faith based spirituality. If anyone thinks their experience is similar, or might be helpful, please share.") Do you think what you're seeking does, or might, include an idea of "redemption"? ------------------- I shared because I thought my experience was somewhat similar; I kind of quit believing in the Abrahamic religions' ideas. But I don't know that my current religious ideas count as "spiritual"; in any case I don't think they satisfy my need, nor would they satisfy yours; though for me they are significantly better than nothing -- perhaps 60% or 70% satisfactory, if such a thing could be quantified (it probably can't). I don't see how any "spirituality" could possibly be "non-faith-based". Is not the conservative, parsimonious hypothesis, the null hypothesis? That no sort of spirit exists? Neither Gods nor Devils nor Angels nor Demons nor Souls? And that Souls do not exist either in or out of bodies? And that there is neither any kind of life-after-death -- e.g. no Heaven and no Hell -- nor any kind of reincarnation? In other words I think Occam's Razor would trim away every sort of supernatural entity, every sort of non-physical entity, every sort of spirit. So believing that any kind of spirit exists requires Faith. If this is not so, could someone on board tell me why not? If it is so, doesn't it make "non-faith-based spirituality" a contradiction in terms? -------------------------- I have tried to replace "spirituality", in my life, with ethics, with relationships with people, and with trying to live my life in a way I approve of. That's not faith-based; but neither is it "spiritual", though some might think it is close. -------------------------------- Few on board have said much yet about "redemption". From what is one redeemed? From death? From sin? Is the result of redemption living forever, or being able to resist temptation and avoid sin, or both, or something else? Who does the "redeeming"? The Greek verb translated "redeem" is a causative middle form of "luo", a verb meaning "loose" or "free" or "release", the opposite of "capture" or "enslave" or "imprison". That it's a causative means God (who, in Christian mythology, redeems us) gets or persuades or pays our captor or warden or master to release, free, loose us. That it's in the middle voice means God does this partly for His own benefit, at least in His opinion; that is, that in God's opinion, ending our slavery to sin and death is good for Him, too (though probably it's mostly good for us). The Hebrew redeemer was a relative who had the duty of getting one out of debtor's prison or debt-slavery. "I know that my redeemer liveth" has this meaning of "redeemer". In English to "re-deem" something is to re-evaluate it, from worthless to valuable; or from trash to something to keep. Less literally it means to go to the pawnbroker and repay the loan-plus-interest and get it back out of hock; restoring the rightful owner-possession relationship. Clearly all of this says that our rightful owner is God; that He values us; that we are currently possessed by sin and death (or whatever); and that God is willing to pay a price more than some might think we are really worth, to get us back and free us from (sin and death? or whatever), and that in doing so He believes He is benefitting Himself some, too, though principally it is we who benefit. So God thinks we are worth more than Sin and Death, or Hell, or the Devil, or whoever now has title to us, thinks we are worth. In Buddhism, or at least in Mahayana Buddhism, one is also redeemed from death; but one is not redeemed so much from sin, as from karma and dharma and desires and needs and the wheel of birth, death, and rebirth, of life and heaven and hell. I do not know how the notions of redemption in other religions compare. More religions have some such concept than don't; but I don't imagine every religion has a "redemption" component, and I don't know much about it for those that do. Does Vodun include redemption, and if so, what is it like? Does Islam? And again, if so, what is it like? How about Judaism? Hinduism? Etc.? Just going through the seven or twelve biggest religions would probably help. ------------------------------------------- Of course if what you're looking for probably has nothing to do with "redemption", you might not find it worthwhile to answer those questions about it. ------------------------------------------- Anyway: I wish you success. I would be glad to help, in case I can.

I can't see the electricity, or the current, or the electrons, or even the power-generator. But it is -*test*-('")able, if you unplug a lamp, it stops working, if you plug it back in and flip the switch, it works, unless there is a short, an out bulb...etc It's -*test*-('")able. Maybe I'm being dense. Or you are. Or we both are. (Or otherwise we are "talking past each other" somehow.) What did you mean when you said There are things which are explainable by science...provable, germ theory being one of them, so the idea that you don't have confidence in that but you do have confidence in something that can't be proven, can't be seen...makes me think you are not likely to be the best person for me to discuss this issue with. If you can give us any kind of a better hint, I will be better able to respond. If I could give you a "better hint", then I probably wouldn't have started the thread... No worries eldin...I'll be ok.

... -*test*-('")able...Yes. A belief in God may not (or may?) be -*test*-('")able; but a belief in the power of prayer ought to be. IME the results are at best inconclusive, at worst negative. As for science, for instance, Darwin's Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection has, in my view, passed enough -*test*-('")s to be adopted as a working hypothesis, at the very least. ----------- Here's something I thought of: "The things you seek, Gilgamesh, are not to be found. For, when the gods created man, they appointed death to be his lot; but eternal life they reserved for themselves. Therefore love the child who holds your hand, and let your wife delight in your embrace; ..." Here's a probably better translation: http://www.rastko.org.yu/civ2/sumer/gilgamesh-temple1.html">The Refresher said to him, said to Gilgamesh: 'Gilgamesh, whence do you direct yourself? You shall not find the life you seek, For at the creation of mankind The gods allotted Death to men. They retained life in their own hands. Gilgamesh, let your belly be full, Make you merry by day and by night. Make everyday a day of feasting and of rejoicing Dance and play, by day, by night, Let your clothes be sparkling and fresh Wash your hair Bathe your body Attend to the babe who holds you by the hand Take your wife and let her rejoice in you. For this is the lot of mankind to enjoy But immortal life is not for men.' ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- : BTW I realized I should also recommend "the Meditations of Marcus Aurelius", especially if you can get a good translation. This is the first available; I don't know how good it is, but it's probably the same as the "Harvard Classics" "Five Foot Shelf" version, which is good.

What I'd like to know is why the existence of only 1 singular deity is being discussed or considered? What if there are lots? What if there are no gods, just spirits/energies/other people? Of course, I'm an Animist, so I'm gonna notice this...

What I'd like to know is why the existence of only 1 singular deity is being discussed or considered? What if there are lots? What if there are no gods, just spirits/energies/other people? My suggestion to you would be to carefully reread the thread...there is more than a discussion of "1 singular deity" going on.

I'm back from vacation, but more on to the topic, I went to a service at a UU (unitarian universalist) church on sunday. I've never been big on "church", I was raised to think independantly and rationally and spiritually, but my parents didn't like the conformity that people undergo to be a part of organized religion. Anyway, I loved the UU. It values just the things I was raised with. There is no set doctrine because the church wants to promote a rational and personal relationship with each person's beliefs. Its only vaguely christian, but you don't have to believe in 1 god, or any god, in order to participate. They place more value on community than on dogma. Anyway, rather than sell it to you, just thought I'd give my opinion and maybe you might find looking into that helpful. :)

What I'd like to know is why the existence of only 1 singular deity is being discussed or considered? What if there are lots? What if there are no gods, just spirits/energies/other people? My suggestion to you would be to carefully reread the thread...there is more than a discussion of "1 singular deity" going on. Well, I went back through again, carefully, and except for one line where the number and nature of divinity was mentioned - the concepts being discussed ARE all tied almost exclusively to monotheistic, redemptionistic theologies. I should mention I have a degree in religious studies, and have been studying this stuff and thinking about it for a long time. Not to say that y'all's thoughts aren't good, just to say I've probably been exposed to more different ideas. Whether judgement of God or by God is important, the role of redemption and prayer, reincarnation, etc. - the ways in which these ideas are being discussed seem based on monotheistic ideologies and understandings. I'm thinking, but I'm not sure I can say just why it feels like that to me so far.

@Dauyn: Exactly how closely did you read the very first post? I mention that the idea "1 singular deity" is something that I have examined and that I do not agree with it.

I got that - I guess I didn't really think of it as a significant subject because pretty much EVERYTHING else has been in terms of one god and what He must or must not be like. I guess I'll leave of trying to understand where everyone else has been / is / will be, and talk about myself. :) I think that: - humanity is not the only self-aware species. - consciousness is imbedded in matter / the origin of matter. - all matter is conscious, and therefore alive. - the world is full of minds/spirits. - Animism is not that world is ensouled, but that there are more people than just human people. - gratitude and respect for all other people, human or not, makes for a better life, for everyone. - "souls" are made of soulstuff, which is dipped from a random source to which all soulstuff eventually returns.

View Full Version: The search...