• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Is Belief in God Spritual Suicide?

Onkara

Well-Known Member
Thank you Onkara.

No Duality.:)
Thank you, dear SLAMH, you are kind. :)

Maybe so. But presuming a God is if anything even more dangerous. It falls squarely into the other extreme, and may easily lead to the most gross forms of self-justification.

Incidentally, no one should "bow" to science. That is not its role.

I also wonder if there is even a dilemma in the lack of knowledge of how Existence came to be. It is legitimate to wonder about that, but it is just as legitimate to just accept that we don't know and it doesn't really matter for practical purposes. If it is a dilemma, it is a very minor one.

Exactly, why presume, why not investigate empirically, but not externally alone, but internally too? The limitation I am hoping to point out is that people cannot find a being outside of them so they conclude there is no "God". This is closer to "spiritual suicide" in my eyes.

By "bowing" I mean resigning oneself to science. It need not mean they deny their individuality or self-control, but that they give up, they commit spiritual suicide by negating that there could possibly be anything else.

I agree, cause and effect are minor by themselves as life goes on regardless. I think there is value in Buddhism drawing the line to help form a solid foundation for investigating oneself without too much debate. Drawing the line helps the investigator come to conclusions through investigation which may have already been reached without investigation. It is not necessary to try to find "god" but it is necessary to look further than science. In other words it is better to investigate than not to do so at all. And I fear science alone provides a false support if no "spiritual" investigation is ever considered. :)
 
Last edited:

LuisDantas

Aura of atheification
Premium Member
Exactly, why presume, why not investigate empirically, but not externally alone, but internally too? The limitation I am hoping to point out is that people cannot find a being outside of them so they conclude there is no "God". This is closer to "spiritual suicide" in my eyes.

If you say so. My experience with perception and self-delusion tells me that such an exercise is pointless to me, however. And that is quite unhealthy for way too many people.

It is valid, for sure, but it is also dangerous. Far too often people attempt to convince themselves that the external reality is somehow "less true" than the internal convictions that they have. That way madness and mountains of sorrow and external damage lie.

If avoiding that is spiritual suicide, then kill myself I will.


By "bowing" I mean resigning oneself to science. It need not mean they deny their individuality or self-control, but that they give up, they commit spiritual suicide by negating that there could possibly be anything else.
In all sincerity, I see that as non-existing problem. I'm not even sure I understand what you mean. Science can't very well be used in a way that hurts spiritual values. People are always free to believe that there are things not understood by science - and in fact, it is pretty much a given for anyone who understands what science is.

I can only assume that your complaint is actually directed at the misunderstandings that happen due to poor education about the role of science.


I agree, cause and effect are minor by themselves as life goes on regardless.
That's is not quite what I meant. The cause of Existence specifically is a minor mystery, with little to no practical importance, paradoxical as that statement may sound. Other, less cosmic matters are far more important.


I think there is value in Buddhism drawing the line to help form a solid foundation for investigating oneself without too much debate. Drawing the line helps the investigator come to conclusions through investigation which may have already been reached without investigation. It is not necessary to try to find "god" but it is necessary to look further than science.
That is a given. After all, the very concept of science relies on limiting oneself to matters that can be proven in a non-personal way. :)


In other words it is better to investigate than not to do so at all. And I fear science alone provides a false support if no "spiritual" investigation is ever considered. :)

I really wonder at times if I understand what you mean. This reminds me of my puzzlement when people talk about Quantum Physics as if it had religious significance. It is just so unrelated.
 
Last edited:

jarofthoughts

Empirical Curmudgeon
Bowing to science in place of God is not different to "spiritual suicide". In fact it denies even the spirit and reduces mankind to meat.

It is important to note that science is a tool and a method, not a god or a religion. That being said, it is the most wildly successful and effective idea we humans have ever come up with, and it has utterly changed and enhanced our lives as well as how we perceive our place in the universe.

In fact it denies even the spirit and reduces mankind to meat.

What is your evidence that you are anything more than meat (and bone and tissue and...so on)?

On a general note: "I/we don't know" is a perfectly valid answer, and often the most honest option. ;)
 
Last edited:

Willamena

Just me
Premium Member
Is it not true that those who believe in god will find only the god they believe in? And is it not also the case that any god the petty mind can conceive of is a petty god? Last, if all of that is so, then is not belief in god a form of spiritual suicide since it would condemn us to -- at the very best -- find nothing beyond our own petty, projected idea of god?
Is that a problem, though?
 

Onkara

Well-Known Member
It is important to note that science is a tool and a method, not a god or a religion. That being said, it is the most wildly successful and effective idea we humans have ever come up with, and it has utterly changed and enhanced our lives as well as how we perceive our place in the universe.

What is your evidence that you are anything more than meat (and bone and tissue and...so on)?

On a general note: "I/we don't know" is a perfectly valid answer, and often the most honest option. ;)

Hello
What evidence would satisfy you? From your post above I would guess you will only be satisfied with empirical evidence, facts that you can demonstrate to yourself alone. The fact if another person claims to have found “god” is irrelevant if it cannot be confirmed by each person personally, would you agree? The difficulty is not in the explanation but in the desire and motivation to find that truth, the evidence. In the same way that finding evidence of bacteria in public toilets may not be a motivator, one must want to know for oneself. The scriptures explain, but people choose not to accept the premises and refuse the scriptures and so the conclusion remain un-provable and as having no “evidence”.

I agree with you, science is a tool and wonderful tool for mankind, but mankind existed without the science we have seen in the last 300 years (or even before the level science that the Roman and Greek empires brought to Europe). So should we be investing in more than just science to find “evidence” for our being, I would say yes.

:)
 
Elaborate way of putting it but overall yes, Spiritualism from Christian point of view is the Devils Doing theres little else to say. Spiritualism is condemned throughout the Bible and lessons are to be learnt from dealing with it.
 

atanu

Member
Premium Member
It is important to note that science is a tool and a method, not a god or a religion. That being said, it is the most wildly successful and effective idea we humans have ever come up with, and it has utterly changed and enhanced our lives as well as how we perceive our place in the universe.

Huh? Is it a "I don't know" stance?


What is your evidence that you are anything more than meat (and bone and tissue and...so on)?

I have seen different kinds of meats spread out in shops. I have not seen any such piece saying "I". I have not seen any dead body (heap of meat) say "Let me live".

On a general note: "I/we don't know" is a perfectly valid answer, and often the most honest option. ;)

I truly hope so.

...
 
Last edited:

Onkara

Well-Known Member
If you say so. My experience with perception and self-delusion tells me that such an exercise is pointless to me, however. And that is quite unhealthy for way too many people.

It is valid, for sure, but it is also dangerous. Far too often people attempt to convince themselves that the external reality is somehow "less true" than the internal convictions that they have. That way madness and mountains of sorrow and external damage lie.

If avoiding that is spiritual suicide, then kill myself I will.

In all sincerity, I see that as non-existing problem. I'm not even sure I understand what you mean. Science can't very well be used in a way that hurts spiritual values. People are always free to believe that there are things not understood by science - and in fact, it is pretty much a given for anyone who understands what science is.

I can only assume that your complaint is actually directed at the misunderstandings that happen due to poor education about the role of science.

That's is not quite what I meant. The cause of Existence specifically is a minor mystery, with little to no practical importance, paradoxical as that statement may sound. Other, less cosmic matters are far more important.

That is a given. After all, the very concept of science relies on limiting oneself to matters that can be proven in a non-personal way. :)

I really wonder at times if I understand what you mean. This reminds me of my puzzlement when people talk about Quantum Physics as if it had religious significance. It is just so unrelated.

Hello Luis
I think we agree in some respects and it is my way of writing that creates a sense of disagreement.

For example, I do not mean exclusion of the external world. I see no reason why it would lead to delusion (I have not mentioned maya or illusions). I mean inclusion of the internal is important. My impression is that many people will look outwards to science and materialism, rather than consider what is going on in their minds and hearts. Sure they know what they feel, but they don’t consider it to be indicative of anything special. I would say that understanding one’s own mind brings rewards and wisdom as much as one may find it in mathematics or materials. I hear people quote RDawkins or Science as if it they were infallible because it doesn’t seem to limit their personal freedom. Freedom comes from inside (spiritual investigation) as well as outside (science).

I wouldn’t suggest you or anyone else avoid science, religions or anything if it can help. One should not lead themselves to the desire to kill themselves, my point is that there is much more to life. My issue at hand is that spiritual suicide can come from handing oneself over to science/materialism just as much as it may from blind beliefs in religion.

I agree too with your point on The cause of Existence it is not as valuable as knowing onself.

:)
 

atanu

Member
Premium Member
Is it not true that those who believe in god will find only the god they believe in? And is it not also the case that any god the petty mind can conceive of is a petty god? Last, if all of that is so, then is not belief in god a form of spiritual suicide since it would condemn us to -- at the very best -- find nothing beyond our own petty, projected idea of god?

That makes me wonder what an atheist scientist will find?

...
 

Onkara

Well-Known Member
"Reality" itself is subject to change. Science is good, but it is not "God". :)


The words of Stephen Hawkins come to mind:

"Any physical theory is always provisional, in the sense that it is only a hypothesis; you can never prove it.

No matter how many times the results of experiments agree with some theory, you can never be sure that the next time the result will not contradict the theory.

On the other hand, you can disprove a theory by finding even a single observation that disagrees with the predictions of the theory."


Science "proves" that there are limitations to the "proof" which science can offer us. Really there is no 100% proof.
 
Last edited:

Sunstone

De Diablo Del Fora
Premium Member
I suggest that the starting point for someone searching for the truth is to read, research and think.

At the initial stage there are 2 main options:

a) Either God exists, and we do have a Creator, or

b) God does not exist, and we do not have a Creator

If one goes for the second option, then one would need to find a coherent answer to the question (where do we and this amazing universe come from?), which no non-believer in God has so far been able to answer

If on the other hand one is convinced that this amazing universe must have a Creator, then the second stage would be which god? (i.e. which faith is correct?)

This is where comparative religion and research is needed to find out which of the world's religion is the truth and when that is answered this would be the faith to follow

Why do you think that this process would be spiritual suicide?

Thank you for a thoughtful response, Cordoba. But I wonder: Why would any of us think the god we seek is anything other than a petty projection of our petty minds? And if that is so, then what, if anything, can we hope to find? Certainly, if that is so, we cannot hope to find god, but only our petty idea of god.
 
Last edited:

blueman

God's Warrior
Is it not true that those who believe in god will find only the god they believe in? And is it not also the case that any god the petty mind can conceive of is a petty god? Last, if all of that is so, then is not belief in god a form of spiritual suicide since it would condemn us to -- at the very best -- find nothing beyond our own petty, projected idea of god?
That may be a relative truth to some, but does not represent a central truth that the God of the universe exists in a real and mighty way and that there is a purpose that He has for our lives. It's not a figmant of our imagination, but is inherently embedded within our psyche, even though there are some who surpress that reality.
 

Sunstone

De Diablo Del Fora
Premium Member
That may be a relative truth to some, but does not represent a central truth that the God of the universe exists in a real and mighty way and that there is a purpose that He has for our lives. It's not a figmant of our imagination, but is inherently embedded within our psyche, even though there are some who surpress that reality.

And I'm sure that, if you believe in that god, then you will find that god -- but is that god more than a projection of your ego? How would you know if it were or were not?
 

blueman

God's Warrior
It not a projection of my ego, but a reflection of my image and life experience. We all were made in God's image (mind, will, emotions, senses, etc.). These things did not evolve by random ocurrences. Our life experiences also reflect a God at work in our lives, helping us to navigate in a fallen world. It's hard for me to fathom the denial of God when we look at the complexity and vastness of the universe and the awesome machinary of the human body, not to mention the origin of morality, love, beauty and natural order.
 

LuisDantas

Aura of atheification
Premium Member
That might be true, but we have no way of knowing for sure.

There is no shortage of alternate explanations, either.
 

Erebus

Well-Known Member
Is it not true that those who believe in god will find only the god they believe in? And is it not also the case that any god the petty mind can conceive of is a petty god? Last, if all of that is so, then is not belief in god a form of spiritual suicide since it would condemn us to -- at the very best -- find nothing beyond our own petty, projected idea of god?

Some very difficult questions there... I like it ;)

Ok, first question: I suppose this largely depends on just how narrow the individual's perception is. It's not unheard of for somebody to be devoted to one god and then change their mind at a later date.

Second question: One way of looking at this would be that a god is multi-faceted and that what we perceive is not the entirety of that god. Think of it as being like explaning pythagoras theorem to a toddler, it's possible that they will pick up some basic understanding that they can translate into their own world view (even if it's only learning that you can draw a square in the corner of some triangles) but it's extremely unlikely they will truly understand it. This is how I would view a being advanced enough to be considered a god as being understood by humans.

Last Question: Yes and no, I personally think that this would be down to the individual. If a person is narrow sighted enough to view their own perception of their god as the absolute truth and beyond error, it's possible that they would only ever experience that aspect of their god (or perhaps be unable to accept any other aspect that might be presented to them).

Personally I consider theism a valid, but risky approach to achieving enlightenment, apotheosis, immortality or whatever you want to call it. Valid because it can be used as a tool to aid understanding, but risky because it presents the possibility of falling into pure faith. Ultimately I would say that belief is fine, faith is not.
 

jarofthoughts

Empirical Curmudgeon
What evidence would satisfy you? From your post above I would guess you will only be satisfied with empirical evidence, facts that you can demonstrate to yourself alone. The fact if another person claims to have found “god” is irrelevant if it cannot be confirmed by each person personally, would you agree?

That is exactly right, and that is how it is with all branches of science now. If you think that this or that scientific theory is incorrect there is nothing stopping you from taking a degree in that particular scientific discipline and investigating the evidence for yourself. And that evidence is objective and available to anyone who wants to see it.

For completeness I'll also mention some "evidence" that would NOT convince me:
- Other people telling me. Reality is not subject to a democratic vote and what people think is real is irrelevant to what is actually real. Opinion matters not. Only evidence does.
- Personal revelation. I am well aware of my own minds capabilities when it comes to producing illusions and tricking me into seeing things that aren't so. I would sooner think that I'd gone slightly mad than believe in a personal revelation.
- Ancient books and texts. They are not evidence of anything except that someone once wrote down what it says in them.

The difficulty is not in the explanation but in the desire and motivation to find that truth, the evidence. In the same way that finding evidence of bacteria in public toilets may not be a motivator, one must want to know for oneself. The scriptures explain, but people choose not to accept the premises and refuse the scriptures and so the conclusion remain un-provable and as having no “evidence”.

Well, I have certainly seen no objective evidence that the central theist claim is true. Hence I do not believe in the central theist claim.

I agree with you, science is a tool and wonderful tool for mankind, but mankind existed without the science we have seen in the last 300 years (or even before the level science that the Roman and Greek empires brought to Europe). So should we be investing in more than just science to find “evidence” for our being, I would say yes.

Science has proven to be the best tool we've devised for figuring out how reality works. What 'more' do you suggest we invest in our search for truth?
Which method should we, according to you, employ?
 

Random

Well-Known Member
Man deifies a projection of his own ego by making "God" a symbol of his own values, attempting to imbue those values with the highest representative authority. The symbol becomes mistaken for reality, and soon he is lost as the egoistic God-figure which is emblematic of all his desires and values becomes unattainable to him, creating a dualistic paradox that he cannot resolve intellectually.
 
Last edited:
Top