Believers & non-believers

[Sriram]

Hi everyone,

We often talk of believers and non-believers.  Does everyone actually fit neatly into the two categories? I don't think so.

Believers can be in several categories.

- Some people could believe in the literal interpretation of scriptures of different religious traditions.

- Some people could just believe in some unknown presence of a supernatural variety.

- Some people could believe that there are natural forces working in nature that fall outside the scope of standard scientific analysis.

- Some people could believe that our inner experiences are themselves a window to another world.

- Some people could think of our own subjective identify or our own Self as an important factor in understanding the universe.

People could fall into any one or several of these or other categories.  Non believers also could fall into many categories I am sure but they generally seem to be materialists ie. believing in only that which is observed through our senses and measurable in some way.

Just some thoughts.

Cheers.

Sriram

[torridon]

Hi everyone,

We often talk of believers and non-believers.  Does everyone actually fit neatly into the two categories? I don't think so.

Believers can be in several categories.

- Some people could believe in the literal interpretation of scriptures of different religious traditions.

- Some people could just believe in some unknown presence of a supernatural variety.

- Some people could believe that there are natural forces working in nature that fall outside the scope of standard scientific analysis.

- Some people could believe that our inner experiences are themselves a window to another world.

- Some people could think of our own subjective identify or our own Self as an important factor in understanding the universe.

People could fall into any one or several of these or other categories.  Non believers also could fall into many categories I am sure but they generally seem to be materialists ie. believing in only that which is observed through our senses and measurable in some way.

Just some thoughts.

Cheers.

Sriram

Okay ...

So why does the binary description of believer/non believer seem to have value ? 

Firstly, dig down, ignore the details of particular beliefs and belief systems, to explain this there must be deeper psychological roots that form the common denominator.  A belief is a higher construct of mind that has value to the individual, value in terms mitigating against doubt and uncertainty and the discomfort of not knowing.  Whether the belief is true and correct is a secondary consideration.  It just has to be a good enough approximation to be of psychological value to the individual.  Because epistemic truth is not the primary concern of beliefs, they are all, ultimately, useful prejudices. We all vary in our personal capacity to cope with reality and this manifests in our willingess to eschew beliefs in favour of evidence based thinking, which requires constant doubt and the acceptance of our limitations. 

Secondarily, believers will tend to value their own personal experience above the reported experience of others.  Adherents of a 'true-for-me' are just such, ignoring the inconvenient fact that other people do not share their experience of life.

[ekim]

Secondarily, believers will tend to value their own personal experience above the reported experience of others.  Adherents of a 'true-for-me' are just such, ignoring the inconvenient fact that other people do not share their experience of life.

I would put that a different way.  A personal experience is an actual conscious event rather than a belief and many value it as they would value a holiday in the Alps as opposed to the reported experience of a travel writer.  Sometimes such personal experiences are related to others so that they may benefit from a similar experience or avoid the pitfalls associated with the experience.  The same applies to a, so called, inner spiritual experience.  The problem arises when it gets mixed with dogma, especially from those who have only read about the experience in scripture. 

[Nearly Sane]

It's effectively a truism if you use a dichotomy of this kind. Try substituting football supporters and non football supporters and you could write much the same post. How you don't do something doesn't make for huge variation.


It's also for me about as much use as the football supporter vs non football supporters in telling me anything about what I might think about the person.

[Sriram]

Okay ...

So why does the binary description of believer/non believer seem to have value ? 

Firstly, dig down, ignore the details of particular beliefs and belief systems, to explain this there must be deeper psychological roots that form the common denominator.  A belief is a higher construct of mind that has value to the individual, value in terms mitigating against doubt and uncertainty and the discomfort of not knowing.  Whether the belief is true and correct is a secondary consideration.  It just has to be a good enough approximation to be of psychological value to the individual.  Because epistemic truth is not the primary concern of beliefs, they are all, ultimately, useful prejudices. We all vary in our personal capacity to cope with reality and this manifests in our willingess to eschew beliefs in favour of evidence based thinking, which requires constant doubt and the acceptance of our limitations. 

Secondarily, believers will tend to value their own personal experience above the reported experience of others.  Adherents of a 'true-for-me' are just such, ignoring the inconvenient fact that other people do not share their experience of life.

The assumptions you are making..

- That beliefs are purely psychological and do not have any roots in reality

- They are purely of individual benefit in terms of comfort.

These are theories formulated by the materialists that I talked about. Not necessarily true.

IMO beliefs are based on real experiences that get translated or expressed in culturally conditioned terms.  The reality experienced is the same. The way it is explained is different.

[Bramble]

The assumptions you are making..

- That beliefs are purely psychological and do not have any roots in reality

- They are purely of individual benefit in terms of comfort.

These are theories formulated by the materialists that I talked about. Not necessarily true.

IMO beliefs are based on real experiences that get translated or expressed in culturally conditioned terms.  The reality experienced is the same. The way it is explained is different.

Since the mind is unavoidably part of 'reality' all experiences are to that extent real. Subsequent interpretations of these experiences, however, whilst also in the foregoing sense real, may be erroneous if they involve unwarranted story telling - a seemingly irresistable human compulsion. There is a Sanskrit word you are probably familiar with - prapanca - that means something like conceptual proliferation/elaboration or pointless narrative. It involves generating explanations above and beyond what is actually happening. A great deal of human life, and almost all religious belief, is prapanca. The fact that something is prapanca doesn't automatically mean that it's untrue, of course, but when we tell that kind of story we simply don't know whether it is true or not. People tend to spin yarns that they want to believe for psychological reasons and such stories may tell us a great deal about ourselves. Whether they inform us reliably about anything else is another matter entirely.

[Sriram]

Since the mind is unavoidably part of 'reality' all experiences are to that extent real. Subsequent interpretations of these experiences, however, whilst also in the foregoing sense real, may be erroneous if they involve unwarranted story telling - a seemingly irresistable human compulsion. There is a Sanskrit word you are probably familiar with - prapanca - that means something like conceptual proliferation/elaboration or pointless narrative. It involves generating explanations above and beyond what is actually happening. A great deal of human life, and almost all religious belief, is prapanca. The fact that something is prapanca doesn't automatically mean that it's untrue, of course, but when we tell that kind of story we simply don't know whether it is true or not. People tend to spin yarns that they want to believe for psychological reasons and such stories may tell us a great deal about ourselves. Whether they inform us reliably about anything else is another matter entirely.

Alright. But how does anyone decide which interpretation is overdone and to what extent?   Summarily rejecting all interpretations cannot be the answer surely. 

[ippy]

In your O P, if you or anyone else came up with foolproof evidence for all of this airy fairy stuff about religions I would take religious belief in the very next moment, can't see that ever happening and for me I've yet to see anything that would make me want to even investigate these religions; some of the stories are amusing that's about all.

Where are all of these religions going in the end, think about it we don't hear much about Zeus, Thor, Minerva and plenty of etc's they've all gone, admittedly you'll always get one or two oddballs still going for them, but they've definitely all gone and it doesn't say much for the future of the remaining few.

Now Sriram, give yourself a treat and take a venture into neurology there're quite a few books out there written about the experiences these people have had to deal with during the course of their work.

I've managed to find some books on the subject, there's plenty there, written for those of us with an average ability to understand, obviously not me of course, but they do show just how far this thing in between our ears is capable of manufacturing so much within our imaginations, however reading up on the subject for yourself would be by far better than any of the angles I can describe or put to you.

Regards to you Sriram, ippy

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I'm wondering if the operators of this forum intended sundays to be ''The Ippy Show''.

[Bramble]

Alright. But how does anyone decide which interpretation is overdone and to what extent?   Summarily rejecting all interpretations cannot be the answer surely.

Why do you think we have to believe or reject our stories? Can't we just be aware we're telling tales and let them be? Religious prapanca mostly involves matters we can't possibly know for sure one way or the other. Why do we have to pretend that we know the answers to unanswerable questions? Buddha is said to have regarded prapanca as a generally unwholesome form of mental activity, and Buddhist teachers usually tell their students to go away and forget about it when they come to them eagerly wanting to share some spiritual experience they've just had and imagine is really profound. So called spiritual experiences tend to be unusual ones, but why should we think unusual experiences are any more indicative of 'reality' than ordinary experiences? There are endless ways of taking the world. They're all just stories, some more helpful than others. Isn't that enough?

[Aruntraveller]

I'm wondering if the operators of this forum intended sundays to be ''The Ippy Show''.

I don't know that it has ever been discussed, but it is surely to be welcomed that it is a change from the Mon - Friday "Vlad's Got Talent Show" which as with every show with "Got Talent" in it,  belies it's own title.

[trippymonkey]

I much prefer Indian music over all other forms. Do I have to 'prove' that to anyone?

Has Sriram tried to force his beliefs down ANYONE'S throats here.?
Does anyone really need to come on here at all - ME included?

[Aruntraveller]

I much prefer Indian music over all other forms. Do I have to 'prove' that to anyone?

Has Sriram tried to force his beliefs down ANYONE'S throats here.?
Does anyone really need to come on here at all - ME included?

That will be no, no and no. But then if people didn't respond we wouldn't have much discussion.

[trippymonkey]

Whatever the quality?

[Aruntraveller]

Whatever the quality?

Ah that is the question. However quality is one of those indefinable things.

(Speaking of which I've just put up a youtube video on the Music is my first love thread for you, although it might not be what you were talking about quality wise!)

[ProfessorDavey]

I much prefer Indian music over all other forms. Do I have to 'prove' that to anyone?

No, as that is a purely subjective 'true for me' truth.

But theists tend not to see god, or the tenets of their religion, as 'true for me' subjective truths, but as objective truths that are 'true for everyone'. That is the critical difference. So were you to have claimed that Indian music is better than western music, and making that claim in an objective manner (i.e. 'true for everyone'), then yes of course you'd be expected to prove that.

[SteveH]

I'm wondering if the operators of this forum intended sundays to be ''The Ippy Show''.

If you're Ippy and youi know it, clap your hands...

[Robbie]

No thank you, that would be highly embarrassing.

Whatever the quality?

Preferably without bigotry and excessive punctuation.

[Sriram]

Why do you think we have to believe or reject our stories? Can't we just be aware we're telling tales and let them be? Religious prapanca mostly involves matters we can't possibly know for sure one way or the other. Why do we have to pretend that we know the answers to unanswerable questions? Buddha is said to have regarded prapanca as a generally unwholesome form of mental activity, and Buddhist teachers usually tell their students to go away and forget about it when they come to them eagerly wanting to share some spiritual experience they've just had and imagine is really profound. So called spiritual experiences tend to be unusual ones, but why should we think unusual experiences are any more indicative of 'reality' than ordinary experiences? There are endless ways of taking the world. They're all just stories, some more helpful than others. Isn't that enough?

I don't know what point you are making.

Prapancha actually means illusionary or made up, and applies largely to the manifest world. In advaita, the universe itself is prapancha.....only an appearance... underlying which are its realities.   

Some stories and allegories are also treated as prapancha in the same way. As mere appearance with underlying realities that we cannot understand.  That does not mean that the stories are not useful.

[Sriram]

My point in the OP is that, all believers are not the same and all beliefs cannot be dismissed as easily as some religious beliefs are. 

[SusanDoris]

My point in the OP is that, all believers are not the same and all beliefs cannot be dismissed as easily as some religious beliefs are.

All beliefs which involve any kind of god/spirit/etc can be dismissed equally, since absolutely zero objective evidence exists for any of them.

All other beliefs, from the trivial to the most important, are either based on facts or do not have, and never have had, any population-wide or, in more recent times, world-wide influence. The huge, huge number of people in the world who believe in some kind of god/spirit/etc is understandable  it is an integral part of history - but must become the belief of  a minority of the world's population for a real understanding of what humans can do and achieve. They have of course always been doing this entirely without any god/spirit but we need a majority to realise this.

[Rhiannon]

No, as that is a purely subjective 'true for me' truth.

But theists tend not to see god, or the tenets of their religion, as 'true for me' subjective truths, but as objective truths that are 'true for everyone'. That is the critical difference. So were you to have claimed that Indian music is better than western music, and making that claim in an objective manner (i.e. 'true for everyone'), then yes of course you'd be expected to prove that.

I’ve yet to meet a pagan who didn’t think that their beliefs are ‘true for them’ rather than ‘true for everyone’. And a lot of pagans talk about experiences rather than beliefs.,

[ProfessorDavey]

I’ve yet to meet a pagan who didn’t think that their beliefs are ‘true for them’ rather than ‘true for everyone’. And a lot of pagans talk about experiences rather than beliefs.,

You may be right, and certainly I don't know many, if any, people who describe themselves as pagan as a religion.

Given that most theists in the UK (certainly) tend to be Christian or one of the other monotheistic religions, I think my inference that 'theists tend not to see god, or the tenets of their religion, as 'true for me' subjective truths, but as objective truths that are 'true for everyone'' seems appropriate. Certainly the Christians on this MB tend to be of the view that the main tenets of their religion (that god exists, that Jesus was the son of god, that he was resurrected etc) are actually true, not just true for them.

[SweetPea]

I would put that a different way.  A personal experience is an actual conscious event rather than a belief and many value it as they would value a holiday in the Alps as opposed to the reported experience of a travel writer.  Sometimes such personal experiences are related to others so that they may benefit from a similar experience or avoid the pitfalls associated with the experience.  The same applies to a, so called, inner spiritual experience.  The problem arises when it gets mixed with dogma, especially from those who have only read about the experience in scripture.

Yes, dogma prevents the full spiritual experience, best to 'let go' completely. Emotions can be confused as spiritual experience too. My own spiritual experience is void of any emotion.... and it works, ensuing trust.