Searching for GOD...

[torridon]

But knowledge alone does not necessarily give us the wisdom to perceive any true meanings behind our existence.  In particular, if you try to use your limited knowledge to dismiss the divine revelations of the Christian bible, you are visibly demonstrating the truth in this prophetic verse from psalm 49: "In his riches, man lacks wisdom"

That is just an argument in favour of ignorance. Wisdom in the absence of facts is an oxymoron.  To be wise, we need to be informed.

[ippy]

My point was that what we take as obvious through sensory observation cannot be relied upon to give us the complete picture. 

The true picture of the universe requires to be painstakingly put together through rigorous study and effort, it isn't obvious. Similarly, the spiritual dimension to life isn't very obvious.  It requires certain awareness of the subtle aspects of life and requires years/decades of study and personal effort to understand.

Asking for evidence of spiritual things is like asking for evidence of the sun being the centre of the solar system or the stars being huge balls of fire many light years away. The evidence cannot be shown because it is all indirect. If one is genuinely interested they have to undertake years of study and become aware of  many fundamental things before they can 'see' the evidence.

Belief in specific deities is a deep emotional issue. It is about what we have grown up with. It is similar to respecting ones mother or father or ones community or country. Objectivity may take a beating.

This description of how you feel is fine by me it's O K and you have every right have these feelings.

We part company when it becomes obvious that people are still making considerable efforts to instil these ideas, maybe not you, into the heads of very young children, namely those children where it's well known that on average children under the age of seven years haven't acquired the ability to challenge ideas, having said that I'm all for promoting children under this age to find ways of questioning, well, everything.

Of course I can't prove it but it does look to me this method has been applied to you when you were at that very young vulnerable age, it makes me feel sad when anything reminds me of how these methods are still being applied to very young children all over.

Regards ippy

[Sriram]

I know what you meant, Sriram. I'm just pointing out that if we are to accept that any of our evidential views could be wrong(a position that I'm all in favour of) then this must at least equally apply to the subjective view that there is a 'spiritual dimension'(no matter how many years of study etc.). What is sauce for the goose, is sauce for the gander.

Spirituality is about experiences.  Repeatable experiences.....not sudden, unforeseen ones.  These are also extremely fulfilling experiences that remove anxiety and give strength and confidence. They also remove fear and make people more wise,  patient, understanding and peaceful.

Secondly, they can also be seen as objective phenomena in the sense that the experiences can be shared and people can be taught to achieve such personality transformations.

Thirdly, these experiences are not just meant to be happy temporarily but they also provide  a purpose for life and make death seem like a simple transition into another world. This is a very important feature of spirituality.

While I agree that some interpretations can be challenged, the experiences and the personal transformations  themselves cannot be seen as 'false' or misinformed. They are very real and very permanent. 

The misinterpretations if any, are not really important because they are just the natural way we imagine the phenomenon till a better understanding dawns. And that is an ongoing process rather than a clear cut wrong-right situation.  It doesn't affect the person or his experience in any way.

[Enki]

Spirituality is about experiences.  Repeatable experiences.....not sudden, unforeseen ones.  These are also extremely fulfilling experiences that remove anxiety and give strength and confidence. They also remove fear and make people more wise,  patient, understanding and peaceful.

Secondly, they can also be seen as objective phenomena in the sense that the experiences can be shared and people can be taught to achieve such personality transformations.

Thirdly, these experiences are not just meant to be happy temporarily but they also provide  a purpose for life and make death seem like a simple transition into another world. This is a very important feature of spirituality.

While I agree that some interpretations can be challenged, the experiences and the personal transformations  themselves cannot be seen as 'false' or misinformed. They are very real and very permanent. 

The misinterpretations if any, are not really important because they are just the natural way we imagine the phenomenon till a better understanding dawns. And that is an ongoing process rather than a clear cut wrong-right situation.  It doesn't affect the person or his experience in any way.

Nothing you say here changes my view at all. Whether 'spiritual' experiences are wholesome, positive experiences or negative experiences says nothing about the idea that the 'spiritual' stems solely from the mind or not. The fact that plenty of people can have such experiences in and of itself says nothing about whether the various interpretations of such experiences are valid or not. I do not dispute that such experiences are real, only that their origins may be questioned and interpretations put upon them 'could also be wrong'.

[Sriram]

Nothing you say here changes my view at all. Whether 'spiritual' experiences are wholesome, positive experiences or negative experiences says nothing about the idea that the 'spiritual' stems solely from the mind or not. The fact that plenty of people can have such experiences in and of itself says nothing about whether the various interpretations of such experiences are valid or not. I do not dispute that such experiences are real, only that their origins may be questioned and interpretations put upon them 'could also be wrong'.

Yes...I have agreed that some of the interpretations could be wrong.  But that does not change the experience itself or the result that people achieve.

[Enki]

Yes...I have agreed that some of the interpretations could be wrong.  But that does not change the experience itself or the result that people achieve.

I find this interpretation and exposition of spirituality to be fairly close to my own. There are arguments against it, of course, but, on the subjective level, it seems to fit what I feel.

http://humanistlife.org.uk/2014/08/19/spirituality-and-humanism/

[Sriram]

I find this interpretation and exposition of spirituality to be fairly close to my own. There are arguments against it, of course, but, on the subjective level, it seems to fit what I feel.

http://humanistlife.org.uk/2014/08/19/spirituality-and-humanism/

From the above link...

************

‘Spirituality’ is an ambiguous term. But so are other terms we’re happy to use, including ‘Humanism’ and ‘religion’. The ambiguity lies is its breadth of meaning, which has extended beyond the original sense of ‘spirit’ (meaning the ‘animating or vital principle in man and animals’) to cover:

Inner spirituality: our profound inner life, relating to the ‘deepest values and meanings’ by which we live; the ongoing part of us that can be subject to self-examination, care and development; and the part that can be impacted by spiritual experiences.

Experiential spirituality: a wide spectrum of experiences ranging from the experience of art to a full-blown, unexpected Comte-Sponville type experience, but sharing the common characteristics of being non-intellectual –  feeling not thinking; involving a sense of transcendence or connectedness with something larger; being associated with emotions of elation, joy and compassion; and being specific to the individual.

Religious spirituality: the realm of god(s), miracles and the paranormal to which spiritual experiences may be attributed by religious people.

Humanists may prefer not to use the S word if there’s another way of conveying what we mean, maybe aesthetic awareness, sense of transcendence, love of nature, or simply love. On the other hand, we shouldn’t let the baggage of religious spirituality put us off if it’s the best word available, or if we need to reclaim it from those who seek to use it to exclude the non-religious.

Whatever terms we use, spiritual experience, and awareness of our own and others’ profound inner lives, are important parts of what it means to be human – and a humanist. And while this will remain an area of difference between humanists and the religious, we can also recognise it as an important area of common ground.

************

So, what exactly is your point?  This is precisely what Hinduism has been saying for millennia...and what I have been outlining here. This is what Yoga says.

That there are various paths and various ways of experiencing the spiritual truth.   What he is referring to here is the Wisdom path, the Kriya path and the Devotion path.  None of them is 'wrong'. They are just ways by which different people approach it. 

What is your disagreement?

[ekim]

I find this interpretation and exposition of spirituality to be fairly close to my own. There are arguments against it, of course, but, on the subjective level, it seems to fit what I feel.

http://humanistlife.org.uk/2014/08/19/spirituality-and-humanism/

I haven't read the whole of that link but there are a number of valid points.  I don't think 'spirituality' should be viewed as the same as 'religion'.  What the article mentions are sudden glimpses of an indescribable state of being which lasts until the mind kicks in and tries to analyse it.  Those glimpses can arise spontaneously or from a walk in the forest, bird watching, meditation etc but the 'spiritual' is also about sustaining that state of being in the midst of day to day living without departing from it.  The variety of methods are a means to an end and are dropped when that end is attained.  The word 'religion' originally meant 're-bind', when that is attained what would be the use of religious scripture and practices.

[Alan Burns]

So, for the sake of argument, would you say that this plan has been an effective one?

Of course it has.
Anyone who accepts Jesus as their saviour will be perceiving the eternal joy of heaven when they cease to perceive through their physical body.  As Jesus said to the repentant sinner who was crucified next to him, "This day you will be with me in paradise".

[Nearly Sane]

Of course it has.
Anyone who accepts Jesus as their saviour will be perceiving the eternal joy of heaven when they cease to perceive through their physical body.  As Jesus said to the repentant sinner who was crucified next to him, "This day you will be with me in paradise".

And of course the Holocaust, and the slaughter and rape of the Midianite children were all part of the plan, and what you worship.

[Shaker]

And of course the Holocaust, and the slaughter and rape of the Midianite children were all part of the plan, and what you worship.

https://tinyurl.com/y8dbr358

[Gordon]

Of course it has.

So, when you said 'God who so loved the world, that he gave us His only son - not to condemn the world, but to save it', how many natural disasters and instances of 'man's inhumanity to man' (to quote from Burns) will it take before you consider that the 'to save it' part of this divine plan has failed miserably? As far as I can see the 'plan' has already failed a long time since.

Anyone who accepts Jesus as their saviour will be perceiving the eternal joy of heaven when they cease to perceive through their physical body.  As Jesus said to the repentant sinner who was crucified next to him, "This day you will be with me in paradise".

That is what the story says no doubt, but given the failure of the 'plan' I think we dismiss it out of hand.

[Nearly Sane]

https://tinyurl.com/y8dbr358

Alan is the board's Pangloss

[Shaker]

Plangloss, surely 

[wigginhall]

Or if there is a plan, it is very similar to a malevolent plan.

[Enki]

From the above link...

************

‘Spirituality’ is an ambiguous term. But so are other terms we’re happy to use, including ‘Humanism’ and ‘religion’. The ambiguity lies is its breadth of meaning, which has extended beyond the original sense of ‘spirit’ (meaning the ‘animating or vital principle in man and animals’) to cover:

Inner spirituality: our profound inner life, relating to the ‘deepest values and meanings’ by which we live; the ongoing part of us that can be subject to self-examination, care and development; and the part that can be impacted by spiritual experiences.

Experiential spirituality: a wide spectrum of experiences ranging from the experience of art to a full-blown, unexpected Comte-Sponville type experience, but sharing the common characteristics of being non-intellectual –  feeling not thinking; involving a sense of transcendence or connectedness with something larger; being associated with emotions of elation, joy and compassion; and being specific to the individual.

Religious spirituality: the realm of god(s), miracles and the paranormal to which spiritual experiences may be attributed by religious people.

Humanists may prefer not to use the S word if there’s another way of conveying what we mean, maybe aesthetic awareness, sense of transcendence, love of nature, or simply love. On the other hand, we shouldn’t let the baggage of religious spirituality put us off if it’s the best word available, or if we need to reclaim it from those who seek to use it to exclude the non-religious.

Whatever terms we use, spiritual experience, and awareness of our own and others’ profound inner lives, are important parts of what it means to be human – and a humanist. And while this will remain an area of difference between humanists and the religious, we can also recognise it as an important area of common ground.

************

So, what exactly is your point?  This is precisely what Hinduism has been saying for millennia...and what I have been outlining here. This is what Yoga says.

That there are various paths and various ways of experiencing the spiritual truth.   What he is referring to here is the Wisdom path, the Kriya path and the Devotion path.  None of them is 'wrong'. They are just ways by which different people approach it. 

What is your disagreement?

The full article, including the part that you have quoted, doesn't suggest, in any way, that our spirituality  is other than an entirely human reaction, often to outside stimuli, centred in the brain. There is no spiritual realm, no separation of animal and spiritual intellects, nothing which is secretive or can  only be learned from antiquity. Rodell calls it experiential spirituality and then proceeds to describe it. Now, if you agree with that, then we do certainly find common ground on the nature of spiritual experiences.

However, just a fairly brief list of some of your utterances regarding spirituality, suggest that you differ considerably from Rodell's conclusions.

For instance:

From 'Yet another thread about the 'Self' you said in post 14:

Ok...For what it is worth let me also explain what I and many other spiritual people think, especially Hindus.

We believe that we have two parts to ourselves. One is the constant part that we call the Higher Self. The second is the evolving part that we call the Lower Self.  The Lower Self reincarnates again and again in various bodies beginning from animals into humans and then further into more civilized and saintly humans.

At the final stage, the lower self merges with the higher self. This is normally called Self Realization when we realize or know or become the constant part. The other part disappears.   This is freedom or liberation after which no more rebirth.

What is the evidence? There is plenty of evidence but only of a subjective kind. You can't examine it with a microscope or some other instrument.

Out intellect naturally objects to this because it is tuned to sense and understand only external phenomena. That is why we need to separate ourselves from the intellect and see it as only a tool. After that we will be able to introspect, work with our mind and travel within to identify the true Self.

This is what all the Yogic science, Vedanta philosophy, Jainism, Buddhism, Gnosticism, Sufism, Theosophy are all about.   

That is as simply as I can put it.  Lots of questions I am sure....but then it is a very complex subject...and no easy answers.

Or, from very early in this thread(post 313) you said:

I believe that just as complex computers have evolved from simple systems through the intervention of human intelligence....so also the human biology has evolved through the intervention of some superior intelligence that works from within our minds.

We may not  know what this superior intelligence is and we might use anthropomorphic models to understand it......but that does not eliminate the existence of this unknown elemental intelligence.

From 'Science and  Atheism' you said:

Scientific findings may conflict with certain mythology and beliefs, but they do not conflict with the idea of a spirit (Self), reincarnation, after-life or even a supreme intelligence of some kind.

Or, From the Life thread, post 54, you said:

We believe that all humans were earlier born at various levels in the animal world as part of their spiritual development. It is a spectrum with the lowest forms of life at one end and humans at the other. Even among humans there is a spectrum with some near the animal level and some near the Divine level.

Our consciousness has developed only through this process. We cannot and should not go back to a lower level of consciousness...or equate ourselves with that.

It is like different classes at school. Once you are out of the primary school, you should stop behaving like primary school children. Merely because you were at one time a child you cannot continue to behave like one.

Hindus are not embarrassed of their animal past. Its all about moving forward instead of continuing to take our cue from the animal world. Continuing to associate with our earlier levels of consciousness is wrong and is considered as bad karma because it goes against the natural flow of life and its development.

So, the relationship of humans to animal life is nothing new in Hinduism and it was understood as a normal part of day to day life long before Charles Darwin.  Spirituality is about developing and moving further.

Now, these seem a world away from the ideas expressed in this article.
Indeed he clearly says that:

The humanist would say it is a subjective human experience, available to anyone, taking place in a human brain, triggered by a complex combination of external sensory inputs and internal memories and processes, and nothing to do with a spiritual realm or deity, both of which she thinks are imaginary. Spiritual experiences can even be created in the laboratory or by taking the right drugs.

Now, I suggest to you, that if you clearly would agree with this, then you are decidedly correct, there is no point of disagreement between us.

[Sriram]

He also adds....

"But knowing all that does little or nothing to diminish the power of the experience. Our ability to have a sense of transcendence and connectedness with others is arguably one of the defining features of our humanity.

We don’t need the accompanying religious baggage, and I’m sure Richard Dawkins doesn’t aspire to the Dalai Lama’s spirituality, but – given that spiritual experiences are almost always positive and life-affirming – maybe we should be have the humility to accept that there are things we can learn here.

Some humanists find all this difficult to swallow. One reason is simply a dislike, even a phobia, of anything that smells of religion. Those who have had to break free from a strong faith background, or suffered from faith-based persecution, may understandably feel that way though, personally, I don’t have any concern that my Humanism will somehow be contaminated by religiosity".

He also talks of transcendence and a connection to something larger....

"...a wide spectrum of experiences ranging from the experience of art to a full-blown, unexpected Comte-Sponville type experience, but sharing the common characteristics of being non-intellectual –  feeling not thinking; involving a sense of transcendence or connectedness with something larger; being associated with emotions of elation, joy and compassion; and being specific to the individual".

Also, he is just talking of spirituality as an experience. He is not associating the experience (in this article) with any larger philosophy of life...which I do.

[Alan Burns]

So, when you said 'God who so loved the world, that he gave us His only son - not to condemn the world, but to save it', how many natural disasters and instances of 'man's inhumanity to man' (to quote from Burns) will it take before you consider that the 'to save it' part of this divine plan has failed miserably? As far as I can see the 'plan' has already failed a long time since.

That is what the story says no doubt, but given the failure of the 'plan' I think we dismiss it out of hand.

Why do you say it is a failure?
The resurrection was God's triumph over evil, and evidence of saved souls is abundant in the miracles performed through the intercessions of saints.  I have personal witness to such miracles...

Moderator: references to previous moderation removed.

[wigginhall]

What tosh, neither use nor ornament.

[Shaker]

Why do you say it is a failure?
The resurrection was God's triumph over evil, and evidence of saved souls is abundant in the miracles performed through the intercessions of saints.  I have personal witness to such miracles...

... but are notoriously coy when asked to present it.

[torridon]

The resurrection was God's triumph over evil, and evidence of saved souls is abundant in the miracles performed through the intercessions of saints.  I have personal witness to such miracles...

Why would god want to triumph over evil that he created ?

[Shaker]

Why would god want to triumph over evil that he created ?

Alan didn't know that his book says just that 

[BeRational]

Why do you say it is a failure?
The resurrection was God's triumph over evil, and evidence of saved souls is abundant in the miracles performed through the intercessions of saints.  I have personal witness to such miracles...

Moderator: references to previous moderation removed.

If I was god I would do a much better job.

Your god is a bit of an idiot or quite evil.

I could achieve everything with no pain and no hardship.

[Enki]

He also adds....

"But knowing all that does little or nothing to diminish the power of the experience. Our ability to have a sense of transcendence and connectedness with others is arguably one of the defining features of our humanity.

We don’t need the accompanying religious baggage, and I’m sure Richard Dawkins doesn’t aspire to the Dalai Lama’s spirituality, but – given that spiritual experiences are almost always positive and life-affirming – maybe we should be have the humility to accept that there are things we can learn here.

Some humanists find all this difficult to swallow. One reason is simply a dislike, even a phobia, of anything that smells of religion. Those who have had to break free from a strong faith background, or suffered from faith-based persecution, may understandably feel that way though, personally, I don’t have any concern that my Humanism will somehow be contaminated by religiosity".

He also talks of transcendence and a connection to something larger....

"...a wide spectrum of experiences ranging from the experience of art to a full-blown, unexpected Comte-Sponville type experience, but sharing the common characteristics of being non-intellectual –  feeling not thinking; involving a sense of transcendence or connectedness with something larger; being associated with emotions of elation, joy and compassion; and being specific to the individual".

Also, he is just talking of spirituality as an experience. He is not associating the experience (in this article) with any larger philosophy of life...which I do.

Hi Sriram,

Everything you quote here I basically agree with. In other posts on this subject I have talked about ideas of being connected to the natural world, of the sense of being a part of the vastness of nature in my case. I agree that we don't need any of the religious baggage which is often attached to such experiences. I accept that there are things we can learn from such heightened experiences, especially about oneself. I wholeheartedly agree that such experiences are feeling rather than  intellectual experiences. Most of the above I have mentioned before on this forum when talking about such experiences as they impinged upon me. In fact I went into detail  about my first such experience when I was about 8 or 9 years old. The reason I chose this piece is because it mirrors to a large extent my own views.

The difference between us is summed up in your last sentence, You link such experiences to your own 'philosophy of life', From my point of view this is of very little  difference to any religious interpretation. To repeat what I said in post 30953, 'I do not dispute that such experiences are real, only that their origins may be questioned and interpretations put upon them 'could also be wrong'... which, of course, is where I basically started this discussion.

[Sriram]

Hi Sriram,

Everything you quote here I basically agree with. In other posts on this subject I have talked about ideas of being connected to the natural world, of the sense of being a part of the vastness of nature in my case. I agree that we don't need any of the religious baggage which is often attached to such experiences. I accept that there are things we can learn from such heightened experiences, especially about oneself. I wholeheartedly agree that such experiences are feeling rather than  intellectual experiences. Most of the above I have mentioned before on this forum when talking about such experiences as they impinged upon me. In fact I went into detail  about my first such experience when I was about 8 or 9 years old. The reason I chose this piece is because it mirrors to a large extent my own views.

The difference between us is summed up in your last sentence, You link such experiences to your own 'philosophy of life', From my point of view this is of very little  difference to any religious interpretation. To repeat what I said in post 30953, 'I do not dispute that such experiences are real, only that their origins may be questioned and interpretations put upon them 'could also be wrong'... which, of course, is where I basically started this discussion.

enki,

The experiences are real...the argument is whether they are merely brain generated or is there something beyond that?

This is the old 'Brain God' argument!   The brain does everything....no other reason required at all! 

The silly old argument.....'If we didn't have a brain would these experiences happen'?  No, they wouldn't. But the counter argument is... If we didn't have computers would we be talking across continents...no! Does that mean that the computer is generating these messages....No!

The simple answer being...the brain is just a hardware that facilitates all our life experiences, including the extraordinary ones.

In any case, we all are free to believe why and how these experiences are generated. No one can prove anything conclusively either way. The choices are between....

1. What the Abrahamic religions believe as God's grace and the Holy Spirit. (though Gnostic Christianity, Sufism and Kabbala appear to concur with no 2)

2. What Hindu philosophy (Yoga, Vedanta) believes to be Inner development of our higher spiritual nature.

3. What scientists believe to be just brain generated experiences. 
 
We need to of course, keep in mind such phenomena as NDE's, reincarnation cases of Ian Stevenson/ Jim Tucker etc.

Cheers.

Sriram