The setbacks of a verificationist approach to spirituality/religion

W

wynn

˙
Valued Senior Member
The setbacks of a verificationist approach to spirituality/religion


Some people who approach religion/spirituality, both the aspirants as well as the critics, do so with the outlook to prove or disprove the claims of said religion/spiritual path. They may be aware they have this outlook, or not.
For example, they try to prove or disprove claims like "God exists" or "There is nirvana".

I contend that such a verificationist approach is doomed to end in disappointment and lack of attainment for the aspirant, and in a (seeming) disproving of the religious/spiritual claims for the critic.
(Some verificationist aspirants may develop an illusion of attainment, though.)

This is because to the verificationist, it is the most important to be right - not to attain what the religion/spiritual path promises.
As such, the verificationist operates out of a set of goals and values that are extraneous to the religious/spiritual path he nominally pursues.
Thus not actually being devoted to the path he claims to pursue, he is bound not to reap the results said path promises.

This is how scientifically-minded yogis don't attain nirvana, and atheists disprove the existence of God.
 
I can see how it could be a fine feeling to identify a personal worldview that has God in it. Anyone is free to do this. Even if the imagination doesn’t match everything or anything, it remains as a source of comfort. Verification is not an issue but for when one wants their worldview to be adopted by others as truth. By definition there can be no verification of that for which evidence is not even conceivable. It is a futile quest.

On the other side of no verification of God much self-contradiction of the notion is found so it’s not at all that the notion or not of God is an equi-probable situation and so it is that people in their everyday lives must and do practically go one way or the other, leanings included, as well as “can’t know”. There is no real need to disprove the felt or conjectured invisible realm but for completeness sake, by some higher thinkers, for why would it be necessary.

I began looking into a theory of everything one starry night long ago during my usual camp on a Hawaiian mountain top. I based my search on what was actual rather than on what ought to be. It was not a God or no God search, but God never came to be required. Later on, He was seen to have no possible role. There were no setbacks.

For those with some setbacks leading to “can’t know”, there is still the complete freedom to be, as that position, too, is final.
 
There are many paths to inner peace and a sense of spirituality. All equally valid...

Unless you throw eternal salvation and/or damnation into the mix.
 
Unverifiable declarations and pronouncements are never a concern in the first place. It is only in the second place of looking into a theory of everything that the God contradictions arise and are well noted.
 
Signal said:
This is because to the verificationist, it is the most important to be right - not to attain what the religion/spiritual path promises.
Click to expand...

very true..they miss the point by having their attention on something it shouldn't be on.
 
It is hard to except results that contradict a persons long held beliefs . Makes a person want to bend the results to there favor instead of learning from the results and moving on to the next step of discovery . It has happened to me plenty of times and required an altering of my own feelings , some times begrudgingly . Yet I am the better for it
 
Yes, for what feels good to the individual need not be verified.
Click to expand...

Exactly. Whatever greases the gears.
Your headspace is your own, decorate it however you like.
 
Signal said:
The setbacks of a verificationist approach to spirituality/religion


Some people who approach religion/spirituality, both the aspirants as well as the critics, do so with the outlook to prove or disprove the claims of said religion/spiritual path. They may be aware they have this outlook, or not.
For example, they try to prove or disprove claims like "God exists" or "There is nirvana".

I contend that such a verificationist approach is doomed to end in disappointment and lack of attainment for the aspirant, and in a (seeming) disproving of the religious/spiritual claims for the critic.
(Some verificationist aspirants may develop an illusion of attainment, though.)

This is because to the verificationist, it is the most important to be right - not to attain what the religion/spiritual path promises.
As such, the verificationist operates out of a set of goals and values that are extraneous to the religious/spiritual path he nominally pursues.
Thus not actually being devoted to the path he claims to pursue, he is bound not to reap the results said path promises.

This is how scientifically-minded yogis don't attain nirvana, and atheists disprove the existence of God.
Click to expand...

Atheists don't disprove the existence of God, because atheists on the main are verificationist. Prove it is the repeated atheist chant.



All Praise The Ancient Of Days
 
SciWriter said:
Yes, for what feels good to the individual need not be verified.
Click to expand...

chimpkin said:
Exactly. Whatever greases the gears.
Your headspace is your own, decorate it however you like.
Click to expand...

Such stances are not what the OP is about, though.

The problem with verificationism as sketched out in the OP is that such a verificationist gets involved with the religious/spiritual practices only indirectly, never actually accepting them.

He approaches religion/spirituality in the same manner as he approaches studying rocks or bacteria - and thus completely misses the point that in religion/spirituality, he himself is the test subject (of the practices he performs).
 
Signal said:
Some people who approach religion/spirituality, both the aspirants as well as the critics, do so with the outlook to prove or disprove the claims of said religion/spiritual path. They may be aware they have this outlook, or not.
For example, they try to prove or disprove claims like "God exists" or "There is nirvana".
Click to expand...

Whenever a religious path is laid out in the form of factual propositions, the truth or falsity of those propositions is going to become an issue.

I contend that such a verificationist approach is doomed to end in disappointment and lack of attainment for the aspirant, and in a (seeming) disproving of the religious/spiritual claims for the critic.
(Some verificationist aspirants may develop an illusion of attainment, though.)
Click to expand...

Without the true/false distinction, what meaning remains in the phrase "illusion of attainment"? How could a purported attainment be "illusory" unless there's some truth about what the attainment should be?

This is because to the verificationist, it is the most important to be right - not to attain what the religion/spiritual path promises.
Click to expand...

It seems to me that successfully attaining what the religion/spiritual path promises would be a very strong form of verification.

As such, the verificationist operates out of a set of goals and values that are extraneous to the religious/spiritual path he nominally pursues.
Click to expand...

This might be a false-dichotomy.

But yeah, religions are often about salvation, enlightenment, 'getting right with God', inner-peace, spiritual unfolding or whatever it is. It might conceivably be counterproductive to over-intellectualize that, especially if all the theorizing gets in the way of the actualizing.

Thus not actually being devoted to the path he claims to pursue, he is bound not to reap the results said path promises.
Click to expand...

If the path is primarily a praxis, a matter of practice, then what somebody actually does is going to be more important than what he/she believes about it.

But if the path is one of gnosis, a matter of seeing through the illusions and finally knowing things as they really are, then beliefs are probably going to be a lot more important.

In real life in the history of religions, it's hard to cleanly separate those two aspects. They may be like the two sides of a single coin.

This is how scientifically-minded yogis don't attain nirvana, and atheists disprove the existence of God.
Click to expand...

Maybe.
 
Yazata said:
Whenever a religious path is laid out in the form of factual propositions, the truth or falsity of those propositions is going to become an issue.
Click to expand...

Or not. I'm trying to think outside of the box here, trying to come up with a new model (new to me, at least) of religiousness and of becoming religious.

Religious epistemology is a topic I find extremely interesting, and important.

My idea so far is that a person doesn't actually choose to become religious, but that their religiousness is simply something in their nature, something they ease into without much conscious effort, something that is too complex to be subject to the person's control. And that as such, many of the usual arguments for and against religiousness are actually misleading.
 
In sports training, it has been demonstrated that visualization can help improve one's sport performance. Even if I am pretending to shoot imaginary basketballs at an invisible net, to get my form correct, I am still programming my brain. The data shows even this imaginary programming can lead to positive results.

We could be materialist and forbid all such fanatasy visulization, since it is not a real ball or net. But since results are more important than philosophy, this fantasy is not only allowed but encouraged.

Even if you work under the assumption that God and religion is all a fantasy, visualization and faith, works the same way as the invisible ball and net. The question becomes what parts of the brain are getting worked out?

Religious visualization often uses a God figure. This images occupies an imaginary places above all humans. The visualization implies there is no human on earth I should worship, since they like me, all beneath the God head. The atheist don't visualize the same way, since there is no god head in their visualization of hierarchy. Humans are the top of their imaginary hill, such that their relationship for worship may involve other humans; money, job, prestige, opulence, power, genius, etc. With religious visualization, these things are all well and good, but it is still small flies and diet coke in comparision to the Big Mac image. What that does is put the religious outside the loop of human idol worship since even the richest man is a bug compared to the big guy upstairs. They are only human, like me.

As an analogous example, say someone was a rock star with a lot of fan idol worship. This person is held up high, sort of like a human version of a music god. That is fine for atheists since he is tangible. Next, his the star's brother comes in. They have the same father, therefore the idol worship does not impact the brother the same way. Instead, he gives him a playful wedgie, since both are brothers in the eyes of their father, with the idol aspect secondary so it does not cloud the mind.
 
Last edited:
wellwisher said:
In sports training, it has been demonstrated that visualization can help improve one's sport performance. Even if I am pretending to shoot imaginary basketballs at an invisible net, to get my form correct, I am still programming my brain. The data shows even this imaginary programming can lead to positive results.

We could be materialist and forbid all such fanatasy visulization, since it is not a real ball or net. But since results are more important than philosophy, this fantasy is not only allowed but encouraged.

Even if you work under the assumption that God and religion is all a fantasy, visualization and faith, works the same way as the invisible ball and net. The question becomes what parts of the brain are getting worked out?
Click to expand...

No, the question is rather, Why would anyone treat spirituality/religion in the same manner as sports training?
Why do you think the analogy applies?
 
wellwisher said:
In sports training, it has been demonstrated that visualization can help improve one's sport performance. Even if I am pretending to shoot imaginary basketballs at an invisible net, to get my form correct, I am still programming my brain. The data shows even this imaginary programming can lead to positive results.

We could be materialist and forbid all such fanatasy visulization, since it is not a real ball or net. But since results are more important than philosophy, this fantasy is not only allowed but encouraged.

Even if you work under the assumption that God and religion is all a fantasy, visualization and faith, works the same way as the invisible ball and net. The question becomes what parts of the brain are getting worked out?

Religious visualization often uses a God figure. This images occupies an imaginary places above all humans. The visualization implies there is no human on earth I should worship, since they like me, all beneath the God head. The atheist don't visualize the same way, since there is no god head in their visualization of hierarchy. Humans are the top of their imaginary hill, such that their relationship for worship may involve other humans; money, job, prestige, opulence, power, genius, etc. With religious visualization, these things are all well and good, but it is still small flies and diet coke in comparision to the Big Mac image. What that does is put the religious outside the loop of human idol worship since even the richest man is a bug compared to the big guy upstairs. They are only human, like me.

As an analogous example, say someone was a rock star with a lot of fan idol worship. This person is held up high, sort of like a human version of a music god. That is fine for atheists since he is tangible. Next, his the star's brother comes in. They have the same father, therefore the idol worship does not impact the brother the same way. Instead, he gives him a playful wedgie, since both are brothers in the eyes of their father, with the idol aspect secondary so it does not cloud the mind.
Click to expand...

well said wellwisher..
 
Yazata said:
But yeah, religions are often about salvation, enlightenment, 'getting right with God', inner-peace, spiritual unfolding or whatever it is. It might conceivably be counterproductive to over-intellectualize that, especially if all the theorizing gets in the way of the actualizing.
Click to expand...

Not only that, but such rationalization/intellectualization introduces esp. epistemological problems that would require omniscience and omnipotence to be solved.

For example, a currently popular idea is that one should take responsibility for one's spiritual/religious choice. And at first glance, this seems nice and reasonable. But if we consider what various religions actually teach about the process of decision-making, responsibility for spiritual/religious choice isn't such a simple matter anymore that one could meaningfully take responsibility for it.
 
Signal said:
Same question as to Wellwisher:
No, the question is rather, Why would anyone treat spirituality/religion in the same manner as sports training?
Why do you think the analogy applies?
Click to expand...

the analogy is for training ones brain,
when one starts to focus on God, our brains get retrained on how to think,(this is Gods job,not mans..um..and yours) they start to see God more and more as our thinking gets trained,<insert ego mantra here>(brain failed)..

so its not a matter of 'treating in the same manner as sports training'
its more of a 'hey this is what i learned from sports training, and it works outside sports training as well'
 
Signal said:
But if we consider what various religions actually teach about the process of decision-making, responsibility for spiritual/religious choice isn't such a simple matter anymore that one could meaningfully take responsibility for it.
Click to expand...

are you saying that a person would have to study each and every religion to make a 'right' choice?
does accepting a religion mean you HAVE to follow their rules?
does accepting a religion mean you automatically believe as they do?
does accepting a religion mean you may no longer scrutinize your own beliefs?
what is 'right'?
<think/feel/know/believe>

AND
its alot simpler than we make it out to be..
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top