Gloominary
But what IS faith? Why would the atheist actually need faith albeit negative faith in order to see “no” God?
Paul says that “faith is the substance of things to be hoped for, the evidence of things not seen”.
I don’t think that all atheists can be viewed in the same way. Perhaps some atheists have a deeply, psychological need to deny the existence of God (ergo, faith and hope of such) and for some ~~~ there is, simply put, NO GOD.
In other words, no need to argue a moot point.
We couldn’t see galaxies a couple of centuries ago, does that mean they didn’t exist?
We couldn’t see infrared or ultraviolet either, does that mean they didn’t exist?
Just because you can’t see something, doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist, it just means that if it does exist, it doesn’t exist in your vicinity, or at least can’t meaningfully or observably interact with you.
I define faith as believing, or disbelieving without any proof, or against proof.
Yes, atheists could have psychological reasons for why they think they know God doesn’t exist.
Like maybe their mommy or daddy sent them to a private Christian school where they were physically or sexually abused by a priest or nun *shrugs.
Or maybe they don’t like the idea of some entity watching them all the time, even when they go the toilet.
I have no idea, but it makes for an interesting query.
Why do atheists insist there is/are no God(s)?
Yea different atheists likely have different albeit subconscious reasons.
What I find interesting is that lots of people who hold relativist positions, get really upset by other people’s actions.
If I said that the way to higher spirituality was in disemboweling newborn babies … it wouldn’t just be “different strokes for different folks” for most relativists. But it’s just as reasonable as any other relativist/subjectivist perspective on spirituality. Right?
AD … while your perceptions may not be unique … they are certainly not ‘main stream’. Your keen insight is usually a sign that one has traveled a long ways on a spiritual path.
Let me try to illustrate with some more of the St Teresa story.
The Catholic Church has always insisted on the role of a spiritual director … perhaps akin to the role of a psychologist, psychiatrist or dream analyst. The alleged purpose being to guide inexperienced spiritual seekers along their spiritual journey. The more likely purpose being to stifle, curtail, suffocate or terminate the impulses from the spirit in novice seekers.
How so?
The Judaic religions … as with most religions … were born in a particular space at a particular time. The original adherents took a “snap shot” of the events in this particular space and time … a freeze frame. Future adherents insisted in clinging to the original “freeze frame”. The Jesus story is a classic example. Thus the hostile attitude to heresy and nonconformist thought.
The only exception I know of are the Chinese religions … both the I-Ching and The Dao De Jing have constant/perpetual change as their foundation.
Back to St Teresa … she was a very strong woman. She allegedly insisted … “don’t send me any more stupid priests” (spiritual directors) ergo: priests who had no idea what the hell was happening inside St Teresa. She recovered and blossomed after meeting St John of the Cross who turned out to be a fellow mystic.
Atheists are the best hope in solving the “ills” of religion(s). You may have an exciting yet difficult road ahead.
I don’t think that that is me unless those actions do harm to others and to their selves.
Give me a “normal” “real” example and I’ll see what I think.
As to the former, see above.
As to the latter, now you are being absurd. How can disemboweling newborn babies lead to higher spirituality? I realize that conditioned cultural and religious beliefs may play a strong role in what people do in order to attain to a higher spirituality (and in a sense these people may experience that) but that is because of their beliefs BUT when that behavior leads to harm or death, where is the logic/reason/goodness and harmony within that?
Don’t you think that religion and religious practices ought to at least be based in reality and good reason?
Once you take up relativism, there is no real or normal. Everything is real for a particular individual. Everything is normal for that individual. Others may disagree but they just have their own personal opinions, their own perspectives. No person’s opinion is any better or worse than another person’s opinion.
So when you say:
You are saying that “spirituality” is whatever a particular individual thinks it is. That may include all sorts of “unique” practices.
I’m not being absurd, I’m using logic to find out where the relativist/subjectivist perspectives end up. If each person defines spirituality “from within”, then he can say that spirituality is whatever pops into his head.
Sure, someone can say that it’s not higher spirituality but that’s just another opinion. That causing harm or death is bad, is also just another opinion.
Iambig writes about this often and I think that’s one of his valid points. Once you fall down the relativist, subjectivist, nihilist rabbit hole, then psychopathy and narcissism become okay.
So are there correct and incorrect interpretations of the Jesus story? Are all interpretations equally valid?
Are there effective and ineffective ways to pursue the spiritual journey? Are all spiritual pursuits equally effective?
How so?
I suppose from the perspective of the interpreter all interpretations are valid. My guess is … even those who followed the man every day for the three years of his ministry failed to completely understand his message.
Krishnamurti earned the respect of a large international community yet at age 90 he still claimed “nobody understands me”.
I don’t know. Suppose one would have to first agree on the objectives of a spiritual pursuit.
The dialectic “Wu Ji Bi Fan” … “As soon as a thing reaches its extremity, it reverses its course.”
Go ahead and start it off. You have been a pilgrim for a long time so you may have some insight into it.
My lifespan is short … I hope to spend my finite time wisely.
Insert here
Some context … as if anyone really cares. 
For the first 43 years of my life I was totally immersed in the crowd. The question … “Am I spending my life wisely?” never occurred to me. The crowd must be going the right way … I simply have to follow.
After being kicked out of the crowd … literally … I was confronted with the question … I had no choice but to consider it … my reliance on the crowd had disappeared.
My birth circumstances coupled with my life experiences brought me to where I am today. I’m quite comfortable … rightly or wrongly … claiming I had no choice but arrive here.
I’m also comfortable claiming atheists and agnostics are engaged in a spiritual pursuit … simply from a different angle/perspective.
Sure they can be engaged in a spiritual pursuit. But for atheists it explicitly excludes God. And if God IS and if God is important, then they are missing something. So a future based on that spirituality is lacking.
Of course if God ISN’T, then the theists are inserting an imagined extra part into spirituality.
I would say that ‘spirituality’ is concern with the non-material aspects of reality. ‘Pursuit of spirituality’ is an attempt to better understand those non-material aspects.
Unless someone claims that all reality is purely material, then he/she can be spiritual and pursue spirituality.
Objectives of Spiritual Pursuit
The human lifespan is short … pursuit of spirituality reflects an individual’s hope/desire to spend his/her finite time wisely.
Pursuit of spirituality’ is an attempt to better understand the non-material aspects of reality.
Insert here.
That can easily be satisfied by consumerism, politics, economics. Accumulation of wealth can be considered “finite time spent wisely” and therefore spiritual. But lots of people disagree - probably you do also if I read you correctly.
Yes, sexual hedonism. Some do consider it spiritual.
Objectives of Spiritual Pursuit
The human lifespan is short … pursuit of spirituality reflects an individual’s hope/desire to spend his/her finite time wisely. In this context, ‘wisely’ means sincere consideration of the possible existence of non-material reality.
Pursuit of spirituality’ is an attempt to better understand the non-material aspects of reality.
A sincere willingness to consider/contemplate spirituality independently … independent of the religious crowd … independent of the atheist crowd … independent of the agnostic crowd.
insert here
The “non-material reality” is ‘relationships’, so clearly it exists. For example, ‘love’ is non-material and exists. Which is why “God is love” is such a common idea.
I don’t think that this independence is required. Why would it be?
Objectives of Spiritual Pursuit
The human lifespan is short … a pursuit of spirituality reflects an individual’s hope/desire to spend his/her finite time wisely. In this context, ‘wisely’ includes sincere consideration of the notion “a personal Holy Spirit”.
A sincere willingness to consider/contemplate spirituality independently … independent of the religious crowd … independent of the atheist crowd … independent of the agnostic crowd. Spiritual pursuit is an attempt at individuation vis a vis a personal/individual view/understanding of the spirit realm/sphere.
Objectives of Spiritual Pursuit
The human lifespan is short … a pursuit of spirituality reflects an individual’s hope/desire to spend his/her finite time wisely. In this context, ‘wisely’ includes sincere consideration of the notion “a personal Holy Spirit”.
A sincere willingness to consider/contemplate spirituality independently … independent of the religious crowd … independent of the atheist crowd … independent of the agnostic crowd. Spiritual pursuit is an attempt at individuation vis a vis a personal/individual view/understanding of the spirit realm/sphere.
An attempt to breach our psychological ‘Firewall’ from within.
Definition Firewall:
a) A wall or partition designed to inhibit or prevent the spread of fire.
b) Computing … a part of a computer system or network that is designed to block unauthorized access while permitting outward communication.
c) Another term for Chinese wall.
All people have a psychological ‘firewall’ separating what they have … from infancy … come to embrace as valid … true … acceptable and so on. All the other stuff … the stuff on the other side of their psychological ‘firewall’ … external stuff … that’s inconsistent with what they are safeguarding behind the wall … can never penetrate their consciousness.
Religion is a classic example … from early childhood we are conditioned/programmed … via language instruction … ritual repetition … parental encouragement … peer pressure etc to embrace a certain dogma/doctrine. Anything inconsistent with this dogma/doctrine is alien and hostile … most often for the rest of our lives.
[b]
[/b]
Phyllo … your niggling has once again helped me to clarify my thoughts … thanks.
You and I have had very different upbringings.
Every little niggle counts.
It’s not a rabbit hole. It’s just a way of thinking about human interactions in a world without God.
Construing them from a perspective embedded in the manner in which I have come to understand the existential relationship between identity, value judgments and political power.
And I never insist that my frame of mind reflects either the optimal or the only rational point of view. Instead, I ask those who don’t share it to note the manner in which it is not applicable to them when their own values [religious or otherwise] come into conflict with others.
And the behaviors of the psychopath can be rationalized as beyond his or her control.
The behaviors of the sociopath however are not embedded in chemical or neurological imperatives from within the brain. They are chosen more or less autonomously based on the assumption that in a Godless universe it’s not necessarily irrational to argue that morality revolves around self-gratification.
Where things really get tricky though is in imagining a world where “free will” is just an illusion.
If you know what I mean.