Unnecessary Confrontations

[Yazata]

I still do not know what can be done to eliminate endless conflicts between materialists and spiritualists.

I doubt very much whether those kind of conflicts can be eliminated. We certainly see plenty of conflicts between adherents of different religions and religious sects. We've also seen plenty of conflicts among secular non-religious people. I'm inclined to suspect that conflict is part of the human condition, part of our basic psychology.

It isn't necessarily a bad thing either, provided that it isn't accompanied by emotional hostility and doesn't escalate into violence. Intellectual disagreement is a big part of what shapes the course of inquiry and drives the learning process.

 

[wellwisher]

One way to look at unnecessary confrontations is each person is different with their optimized path optimized for them. When they say this cake is the best, it may quite well be the best for them. What they say is partially true. But they often forget to say this can only be proven to be best for, since they are not conscious of the subtly that what is optimized for one may not optimize all.

I might like rock music, which could be perfect for my music needs. But other may like classical or rap. This is fine for them. But to assume what is right for me has to be right for all is irrational. This irrationality leads to all the arguments. If you can understand your tastes and needs are unique to you, then you can share this with others, but not expect them to always get as excited as you feel.

We can argue vanilla versus chocolate with people getting excited, while others given good arguments and proof with statistics for each side. But the fact will still remain to each his own in terms of optimization. Maybe being polite to the irrational means agreeing with them so they feel better about their uniqueness.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Signal,

It would be strange if a religion (or "spiritual path," or whichever to call it) would not consider itself superior to all others.

And you know every hindu believes this, how?

Nowadays, it is generally not PC to say about one's religion that it is superior to all others. It is also not PC to point out that each religion does consider itself superior to all others.

And why do you equate ''PC'' with ''spiritual path''?

[quoter]A person would have to be amoral and arational to be an adherent of a path which they do not believe to be superior to all others.[/QUOTE]


And how do you know this?


jan.

 

[Yazata]

2) Our two worlds, material and spiritual
The two worlds in which most of us live, spiritual and material, are very different from each other; methods of validation of claims in science are not the same as in theology.

Talking about "two worlds" makes me nervous. I don't know whether the phrase is meant literally or figuratively. I don't believe that we literally live in two different ontological worlds. (I'm something of a monist.) But I have less problem with the idea that we conceive of and relate to our single world in multiple psychological and conceptual ways.

Probably far more ways than just two. Artists relate to the world aesthetically. Businessmen see it as a collection of things to be bought and sold. Some people relate to the world in terms of logic and technical abstractions, others emotionally, in terms of feelings and personality. Some imagine the world as a puzzle, as a mystery to be solved. Others see it in terms of right-and-wrong, praise-and-blame, and personal responsibility. Some people are self-centered, some other-centered.

And obviously, most of us are capable of displaying multiple modes, emphasizing some more than others, depending on the occasion.

But many of us do favor some modes over others and these different psychological types probably tend to gravitate towards different poles in your material-spiritual dichotomy. The rational, analytic people who perceive the world as a mystery are apt to end up as religious agnostics and become scientists. People who instinctively think of everything in terms of personal relationships are more likely to viscerally assume that everything must be traceable back to some supreme cosmic personality.

 

[wynn]

And why do you equate ''PC'' with ''spiritual path''?

?
What makes you think I equated the two?

A person would have to be amoral and arational to be an adherent of a path which they do not believe to be superior to all others.

And how do you know this?

Do you really believe that a person would hold about their own stance or path (religious, spiritual, philosophical, etc.) a belief such as
"I am sure that what I believe is not the best there is. I know there are better, higher, more moral, more advanced beliefs. But I do not care about them. I stick to my own beliefs, even though I know them to be inferior."
or
"That's just my way. I don't care if it is the best there is. I'll stick to it anyway."
-?

 

[spidergoat]

That was not my claim. RELIGION = THEISM + MANY OTHER THINGS

Are science and theology compatible? I think that the concept of incompatibility would not apply if we had agreed that science deals only with claims in our material world while theology deals only with claims in our spiritual world.

Such agreement would help us to eliminate many unnecessary conflicts.

...............................................

Ludwik Kowalski (see Wikipedia). A am also the author of a FREE ONLINE book entitled “Diary of a Former Communist: Thoughts, Feelings, Reality.”

http://csam.montclair.edu/~kowalski/life/intro.html

It is a testimony based on a diary kept between 1946 and 2004 (in the USSR, Poland, France and the USA).

I feel this is a false dichotomy that the "spiritual" have invented in order to avoid criticism. There is no spiritual world, there is only the world.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Signal,

What makes you think I equated the two?

So how is ''PC-ness'' relevant to the questions I asked?

Do you really believe that a person would hold about their own stance or path (religious, spiritual, philosophical, etc.) a belief such as
"I am sure that what I believe is not the best there is. I know there are better, higher, more moral, more advanced beliefs. But I do not care about them. I stick to my own beliefs, even though I know them to be inferior."
or
"That's just my way. I don't care if it is the best there is. I'll stick to it anyway."
-?

So you know this is the thought pattern of every person who adheres to
a spiritual path, how exactly?

I'm interested in how you know these things.


jan.

 

[wynn]

So how is ''PC-ness'' relevant to the questions I asked?

I said:

Nowadays, it is generally not PC to say about one's religion that it is superior to all others. It is also not PC to point out that each religion does consider itself superior to all others.

From this, you seemed to have concluded that I am equating "PC" with "spiritual path" -

And why do you equate ''PC'' with ''spiritual path''?

I have no idea how you came to that conclusion.

So you know this is the thought pattern of every person who adheres to
a spiritual path, how exactly?

I'm interested in how you know these things.

First of all, I said:

Do you really believe that a person would hold about their own stance or path (religious, spiritual, philosophical, etc.) a belief such as
"I am sure that what I believe is not the best there is. I know there are better, higher, more moral, more advanced beliefs. But I do not care about them. I stick to my own beliefs, even though I know them to be inferior."
or
"That's just my way. I don't care if it is the best there is. I'll stick to it anyway."
-?

I did not say that "this is the thought pattern of every person who adheres to
a spiritual path."


Earlier, I said:

A person would have to be amoral and arational to be an adherent of a path which they do not believe to be superior to all others.

which is a truism. It simply follows from the common-sense understandings of choice; we consider it a given that a rational, moral agent always chooses that which she finds best, superior to everything else.


And what's wrong with declaring superiority?
Declaring superiority perhaps only becomes a problem when one isn't actually superior.

 

[Yazata]

Do you really believe that a person would hold about their own stance or path (religious, spiritual, philosophical, etc.) a belief such as
"I am sure that what I believe is not the best there is. I know there are better, higher, more moral, more advanced beliefs. But I do not care about them. I stick to my own beliefs, even though I know them to be inferior."

I kind of fit that description. In a way.

My intellectual views are all works-in-progress. They are always changing as I learn and experience things. So I can't say that their state today is the last and final word on anything. I assume that I could probably shape better views if I knew more.

And I'm very cognizant of the fact that I'm going to die long before I reach the end of that gnostic path and reach the Final Ultimate Truth... assuming that such a thing even exists for human beings.

Of course, I do care about learning more. So I can't say "I don't care".

Though maybe I can say that when it comes to religious practice.

Imagine a Buddhist householder. He or she knows that monastic practice exists and that's arguably a 'higher' form of practice. But the householder might be quite satisfied with being a householder and have little interest in ordaining. Imagine a junior monastic. He or she is probably aware that there are meditation and other practices that more senior monastics engage in and have perhaps even mastered. But the junior monastic knows those are things that one must work up to and knows that the task at hand is to master his or her own practice - then and there.

I guess that I think of both intellectual and religious life in terms of following a path. Being human, we naturally tend to grade different paths and different positions on the same path as being 'higher' and 'lower'. And naturally, we all want to skip over all the lower stuff and jump immediately to the very highest, best and truest.

But in religious life particularly, I don't know if that's a good idea. Sometimes it might be better to take the simplest and most elementary practice and really follow it as far as it will take us. That might be very far indeed. There's probably no need to complicate things. I often sense that's the direction in which real spirituality lies.

I've met several people in my life that I think of as... I don't know... very evolved and even saintly beings. They all came from unexpected places; a welder, a housewife. None of them were theologians or religious gurus. None of them were even conventionally religious. What they shared wasn't sophisticated doctrine, but simply purity of heart.

 

[Jan Ardena]

I feel this is a false dichotomy that the "spiritual" have invented in order to avoid criticism.

At least we know for sure this feeling you ''feel'' IS invented.

jan.

 

[spidergoat]

It's a reasonable conclusion, given that there is no evidence of anything spiritual in a supernatural sense. I would make an exception to the use of the word as a label applied to the practice of seeking to alter, perceive, or reconcile our relationship between our minds and the material world or society.

 

[wynn]

I kind of fit that description. In a way.

Sure. But you wouldn't go out and identify yourself as a "Buddhist", would you? And you wouldn't go out and say that everyone who is not a Buddhist, is wrong/inferior/in delusion?

I have no doubt that many people believe they are works in progress and that they believe that their current practice isn't necessarily the best possible.

But every existing religion has the tenet that it is superior to all others. There is no religion that would say "You can believe and do things like we believe and do, or you can do them any other way, it's allright, you'll get enlightened/liberated/do right by God just the same."
So declaring oneself to be a member of a particular religion implies the declaration that one's path is superior.


Surely, within one religion, adherents often say that they are works in progress - but they are nonetheless convinced that they are on the right path and that it is the best path.

 

[birch]

Sure. But you wouldn't go out and identify yourself as a "Buddhist", would you? And you wouldn't go out and say that everyone who is not a Buddhist, is wrong/inferior/in delusion?

I have no doubt that many people believe they are works in progress and that they believe that their current practice isn't necessarily the best possible.

But every existing religion has the tenet that it is superior to all others. There is no religion that would say "You can believe and do things like we believe and do, or you can do them any other way, it's allright, you'll get enlightened/liberated/do right by God just the same."
So declaring oneself to be a member of a particular religion implies the declaration that one's path is superior.


Surely, within one religion, adherents often say that they are works in progress - but they are nonetheless convinced that they are on the right path and that it is the best path.

this is not necessarily true. there are religions and philosophies that are tolerant and think that a person's spiritual path is unique for them. they don't necessarily think that there's is superior but that it may fit them or their needs/understanding. also, even if one is convinced they are on the right path for 'them', that doesn't mean that they think that it is the best path for 'everyone'. they know that those who think and feel like them will gravitate toward the same path and others will gravitate toward what works for them. one can understand that one size does not always fit all. monotheistic religions tend to not understand the complexities and think one path is good for everybody.

that said, there are those who can't or won't understand that what is the right path for them may not be the best or right path for another just as everyone has different personalities, preferences, tastes and ways of learning as well as different or unique goals that may not be just like another. it's personal.

 

[Jan Ardena]

It's a reasonable conclusion, given that there is no evidence of anything spiritual in a supernatural sense. I would make an exception to the use of the word as a label applied to the practice of seeking to alter, perceive, or reconcile our relationship between our minds and the material world or society.

Given that minds are what create societies, and you don't hardly know
anything about the mind, your conclusion of ''no evidence'' is no more credible.

But that aside, why is it a ''reasonable conclusion''?

jan.

 

[spidergoat]

Maybe you don't know anything about the mind, but science does, and it doesn't depend on any mystical phenomenon. We do know that the mind generates illusions, but it would be a mistake to call any of that real.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Maybe you don't know anything about the mind, but science does, and it doesn't depend on any mystical phenomenon. We do know that the mind generates illusions, but it would be a mistake to call any of that real.

Can science show the sum total of reality?

Yes the mind can generate illusion, but you are not
in a position to claim that God and spirituality are one.
You can't even prove to me that you aren't delusional, yet
you act as though you have knowledge of what you speak of.

I feel this is a false dichotomy that the "spiritual" have invented in order to avoid criticism.

Again, why is this a ''reasonable conclusion''?
What is it that you know?

jan.

 

[spidergoat]

I didn't claim that spirituality and God are the same. I acknowledge the human practice of spirituality, but reject the idea that spirituality is defined by contact with a supernatural realm.

The rejection of a godly or spiritual supernatural realm is supported by the fact that there is no reliable evidence for the existence of the non-material, or miracles, or gods. It's not enough to say that it doesn't apply, since this realm is said to have influence on our lives, which are material. So if these worlds don't overlap, there is no point to them.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Signal,

I have no idea how you came to that conclusion.

You said: It would be strange if a religion (or "spiritual path," or whichever to call it) would not consider itself superior to all others.'' Then you said:
''Nowadays, it is generally not PC to say about one's religion that it is superior to all others. It is also not PC to point out that each religion does consider itself superior to all others. ''

Than I asked: ''So how is ''PC-ness'' relevant to the questions I asked?''
Which was: ''Do you know every single hindu, Signal, from the
moment the term ''hindu'' was announced?'' Which was a response to the statement you made: ''Hindus are no better, though. While they don't believe in eternal damnation, they are on the same superiority trip as other theists.''

Is that clear?

A person would have to be amoral and arational to be an adherent of a path which they do not believe to be superior to all others.

which is a truism. It simply follows from the common-sense understandings of choice; we consider it a given that a rational, moral agent always chooses that which she finds best, superior to everything else.

Are you sure about that?
Can you give some examples of this truism?

And what's wrong with declaring superiority?

Did you forget what you said?

Hindus are no better, though. While they don't believe in eternal damnation, they are on the same superiority trip as other theists

.


Signal, staight answers means we get to the point quicker. No need
to go backwards.


jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

spidergoat,

I didn't claim that spirituality and God are the same. I acknowledge the human practice of spirituality, but reject the idea that spirituality is defined by contact with a supernatural realm.

Cool, but keep it in the realm of YOUR opinion, where it belongs.

The rejection of a godly or spiritual supernatural realm is supported by the fact that there is no reliable evidence for the existence of the non-material, or miracles, or gods.

That's just an out and out lie.
You may not agree with the numerous testimonies even to the point where YOU don't believe they are reliable evidence to convince you. But to claim that there IS no evidence is a lie.

It's not enough to say that it doesn't apply, since this realm is said to have influence on our lives, which are material. So if these worlds don't overlap, there is no point to them.

This opinion is irrelevant.

jan.

 

[spidergoat]

I did say there is no reliable evidence, and that is a fact, not an opinion. Anecdotal evidence is not reliable, since people are subject to illusions and delusions. That means (to answer your repeated question) that rejecting these claims as unreliable is reasonable.

The term [anecdotal evidence] is often used in contrast to scientific evidence, such as evidence-based medicine, which are types of formal accounts. Some anecdotal evidence does not qualify as scientific evidence because its nature prevents it from being investigated using the scientific method.(wikipedia)​

In order to refute this notion, you would have to claim that personal testimony is always an accurate report of reality, which means there is just as much evidence for God as there is for the Loch Ness Monster, Sasquatch, the Chupacabra, or Alien abductions.