1. 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!

Featured Crossbreed atheism with spirituality

Discussion in 'General Religious Debates' started by atanu, May 4, 2019.

  1. ajay0

    ajay0 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2012
    Messages:
    1,569
    Ratings:
    +979
    Here you can see Viktor Frankl, a Jewish concentration camp survivor, commenting on the erosion of human values and virtuous conduct by the onslaught of nihilistic thought...


    “If we present a man with a concept of man which is not true, we may well corrupt him. When we present man as an automaton of reflexes, as a mind-machine, as a bundle of instincts, as a pawn of drives and reactions, as a mere product of instinct, heredity and environment, we feed the nihilism to which modern man is, in any case, prone.
    I became acquainted with the last stage of that corruption in my second concentration camp, Auschwitz. The gas chambers of Auschwitz were the ultimate consequence of the theory that man is nothing but the product of heredity and environment; or as the Nazi liked to say, ‘of Blood and Soil.’ I am absolutely convinced that the gas chambers of Auschwitz, Treblinka, and Maidanek were ultimately prepared not in some Ministry or other in Berlin, but rather at the desks and lecture halls of nihilistic scientists and philosophers.”- Viktor Frankl
     
    • Like Like x 1
  2. stvdv

    stvdv Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2018
    Messages:
    3,830
    Ratings:
    +2,045
    Religion:
    Sanathana Dharma [The Eternal Religion]
    After meeting my Master I decided to be as virtuous as I can as my sadhana, and never meditated. My meditative awareness increased immense, probably all due to the Grace of my Master, but it's good to hear this example that this really worked for Rajini. My Master also says that when you practice one virtue, that is enough to obtain them all. Makes sense to me. I met this Swami Satchidananda (from your link) when He was in Holland long time ago. Very nice and friendly man. He radiated sweetness and Love.

    And virtue can be anything. Aghori comes to mind. If they get Guru Grace then anyone can get it. So Anyone and Spirituality can go hand in hand. I do remember Shiva stories. Shiva is very easy in granting boons. He surprised me once, so now I am more careful asking Shiva. Before you know Shiva is there.
     
    • Friendly Friendly x 1
  3. ajay0

    ajay0 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2012
    Messages:
    1,569
    Ratings:
    +979
    Yeah, the point is that it is possible also for a non-theist or agnostic to attain enlightenment or spiritual development provided they adhered to virtuous conduct or a proper value system.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  4. QuestioningMind

    QuestioningMind Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2010
    Messages:
    2,197
    Ratings:
    +1,599
    What an absolutely ridiculous claim. I'm certainly nor presuming that what can be determined via the scientific method is the sum of all truth. What I HAVE said is that THUS FAR the scientific method is BY FAR the best method we've come across for determining what is in truth real. It's certainly POSSIBLE that things exist beyond the scientific method to detect. But without any sort of verifiable EVIDENCE for something supernatural it would be silly to conclude that there definitely ARE supernatural events. You or someone else must FIRST come up with a reliable method for distinguishing between a GENUINE supernatural claim and a completely MADE UP supernatural claim. Until someone does claiming that something is supernatural becomes virtually meaningless.

    Suggesting that it's the fault of the scientific method that human beings have used technological advances made possible via the method for atrocities caused in war or elsewhere is moronic. Knowledge itself is not inhumane. It's how human being choose to apply that knowledge that is or is not inhumane.
     
  5. ecco

    ecco Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2016
    Messages:
    6,029
    Ratings:
    +3,075
    Religion:
    atheist
    One must always consider the source:

    Viktor Frankl - Wikipedia
    Viktor Emil Frankl was an Austrian neurologist and psychiatrist as well as a Holocaust survivor. He survived Theresienstadt, Auschwitz, Kaufering and Türkheim. Frankl was the founder of logotherapy, which is a form of existential analysis, the "Third Viennese School of Psychotherapy".

    Frankl has been the subject of criticism from several holocaust analysts[5][6] who questioned the levels of Nazi accommodation that the ideology of logotherapy has and Frankl personally willingly pursued in the time periods before Frankl's internment, when Frankl voluntarily requested to perform unskilled lobotomy experiments approved by the Nazis on Jews,[7] to the time period of his internment, in what is hinted upon in Frankl's own autobiographical account and later under the investigative light of biographical research.​
     
  6. PureX

    PureX Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2006
    Messages:
    10,876
    Ratings:
    +3,644
    Religion:
    Philosophical Taoist/Christian
    And you're still very wrong. As the only thing science can determine is which of our invented theories of physical functionality appears to work under a very specific set of test conditions. This is hardly an exposition on the limits or fundamental nature of reality.
    "Supernature" has nothing to do with anything. And the fact that we know so little about even the physical nature of existence is pretty strong evidence that there is a great deal about 'reality' that science is unable to detect, test, or even speculate about.
    "Supernature" has nothing to do with anything. We wouldn't even be able to recognize it if we experienced it. It's just a concept created by the limitations of the human intellect.
    Science has no way of determining value or propriety because these are not physical functions. Which is why we NEED religion, philosophy, and art even MORE than we need science. Without it all science does is throw a box full of loaded pistols into a cage full of hyperactive monkeys. And that's not going to end well for the monkeys.
     
  7. ajay0

    ajay0 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2012
    Messages:
    1,569
    Ratings:
    +979

    Western philosophy and psychology, which is of recent origin, has not yet touched upon the phenomenon of enlightenment or Buddhahood , and this is why nihilism and other lopsided philosophies like existentialism were prominent in the west leading to an erroneous thought process and corresponding actions, considering all moral values to be abstractly contrived.

    So, it is natural that Viktor Frankl himself perhaps entertained nihilist-existentialist philosophical ideas himself ( which anyway was in currency in europe at those times) and acted on it, due to lack of better ones to guide his thought process.

    However one must say that Frankl also allowed compassion and values to guide him as well. As per the link you have given...

    Beginning with the Nazi takeover of Austria in 1938, he was prohibited from treating "Aryan" patients due to his Jewish identity. In 1940 he started working at the Rothschild Hospital, where he headed its neurological department. This hospital was the only one in Vienna to which Jews were still admitted. His medical opinions (including deliberately false diagnoses ) saved several patients from being euthanised via the Nazi euthanasia program.
     
    #67 ajay0, May 5, 2019
    Last edited: May 5, 2019
  8. ecco

    ecco Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2016
    Messages:
    6,029
    Ratings:
    +3,075
    Religion:
    atheist
    The first passage of his that you posted clearly shows him as a man who believes Creationism over Evolution and is OK with blaming mankind's shortcoming and evils on those who would accept nature over theism.

    What was your point in posting about him?
     
  9. ajay0

    ajay0 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2012
    Messages:
    1,569
    Ratings:
    +979
    “If we present a man with a concept of man which is not true, we may well corrupt him. When we present man as an automaton of reflexes, as a mind-machine, as a bundle of instincts, as a pawn of drives and reactions, as a mere product of instinct, heredity and environment, we feed the nihilism to which modern man is, in any case, prone. - Viktor Frankl


    Well, I don't see any creationism or evolution over here. He is only highlighting the dangers of outright materialism feeding nihilism as well.

    My point is to highlight the fact that atheist-materialism divorced from values due to nihilist-existentialist conditioning is devoid of any spirituality and highly dangerous for that matter.
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Winner Winner x 1
  10. QuestioningMind

    QuestioningMind Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2010
    Messages:
    2,197
    Ratings:
    +1,599
    This is hardly an exposition on the limits or fundamental nature of reality.

    And I have NEVER made any such claim. All I have stated is that THUS FAR the scientific method is BY FAR the most reliable method we've discovered to determine how reality works. It's certainly POSSIBLE that there is a better method and someday we may figure out what it is, but until that time comes, the scientific method is the most reliable method we have available.

    "Supernature" has nothing to do with anything. And the fact that we know so little about even the physical nature of existence is pretty strong evidence that there is a great deal about 'reality' that science is unable to detect, test, or even speculate about.

    It does if you define the supernatural as proposed things that exist that can't be detected tested or even speculated about by science. Certainly such things DO exist that are beyond science's current ability to detect or test, but the question becomes what method do you use to determine which proposed things actually DO exist and which ones are nothing more than figments of a person's imagination? Until such a method is developed, speculations about things that exist beyond the scientific method to detect will forever remain nothing more than mere speculations.

    Which is why we NEED religion, philosophy, and art even MORE than we need science.

    No one has even suggested that the scientific method should or can in any way replace art, philosophy, or even religion. ALL I have said and will continue to say is that thus far the scientific method has BY FAR been the most reliable method we've found for determining how the universe works. Art and philosophy and even religion for some I suppose are essential qualities of being human and understanding what it means to be human. Can the scientific method create a beautiful painting that will evoke emotional responses? Nope... but that's not what it's designed for. Can it create a philosophy for moral behavior? Nope... but that's not what it was designed for.

    What it IS designed for and what what art, philosophy, and religion fail to do is successfully determine such things as The Earth orbits around the sun or that germs and disease cause illness or that volcanoes erupt because of geological stresses taking place at the planet's core. So NO, we do NOT need religion, philosophy, and art MORE than we need science... IF the goal is to determine how the universe functions.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  11. PureX

    PureX Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2006
    Messages:
    10,876
    Ratings:
    +3,644
    Religion:
    Philosophical Taoist/Christian
    And you're still wrong. Because the only reality we humans can know is the one we invent in our heads in response to our very limited experience of the great and mysterious 'what is' that we cannot truly perceive or comprehend.
    It's logically impossible for us to determine that, so I must contend that it is your biased opinion. I understand how such a biased opinion can develop, as we humans do survive and thrive by our ability to understand and manipulate the physical mechanisms of our environment to our own advantage. So, of course, to us, being able to do so would seem like the epitome of 'knowing reality'. But it's not. Because our survival isn't even on the existential radar as far as we can tell. So it's really of no significance at all to the big 'what is'.
    Well, that's just a semantic point, but even so, then you pretty much just proved that "supernature" exists (though I would take issue with your choice of term relative to your own definition of it). As all sorts of phenomena exist that science cannot detect, test, or control. Love, for example. Beauty, perfection, honor, and so on. Humans all over the world, and in all epochs, have experienced these metaphysical phenomena and yet science can do nothing to explore them but record the brain's reactions to them. Not exactly a stellar 'exposition on the limits or fundamental nature of reality', is it.
    That we have asked the question pretty much proves that they exist. And since they do not exist as a physical expression, but rather as a metaphysical expression, science is of little use in exploring them. Which is why we humans engage in philosophy, art, religion, and even 'fun'.
    Wow! That bias of yours is really blinding you. Those other methods already exist, and millions of humans are already engaged in that exploration.
    Actually, a good many atheists are suggesting that religion be done away with all together, and have little to no understanding or appreciation of art as being anything more than an entertainment commodity. Their whole focus is on science and science alone as the singular and universal means of defining and understanding existence. They will deny it when confronted, directly, as you do, but their constant belittling and dismissing of anything and everything non-material and non-'scientific' gives them away, easily.
    Then it really isn't that important to most of us (unlike yourself). Because after our physical survival, comes the value and meaning of it all. The reasons for surviving in the first place. You know, the area of contemplation that defines us as human, as opposed to our being just another animal surviving blindly according to the dictates of it's DNA coding. ... I'm referring to the reasons we humans engage in philosophy, art, religion, and even 'fun'.
    But, of course, that isn't the primary goal of most human beings, after all. Which is why so many of us have grown wary, and weary, of this new atheistic 'scientism'.
     
    #71 PureX, May 5, 2019
    Last edited: May 5, 2019
  12. It Aint Necessarily So

    It Aint Necessarily So Well-Known Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2017
    Messages:
    5,152
    Ratings:
    +5,210
    Religion:
    None
    For the reason he or she does anything else - the need or desire for a perceived or expected benefit of some sort.

    I wouldn't know.

    I call my private, inner life of thought contemplation. I do it every day. I do it before I post here, typically while walking in circles around the island in the center of my kitchen near where my laptop sits (Kant is said to have done the same while walking through the streets of Königsberg) thinking about what I want to say and how I want to say it.

    Secular humanism transformed the world. It had to wait for religious ideologies to be subdued enough to switch over to Enlightenment values such as empiricism over superstition, and the modern, liberal, democratic state with guaranteed personal rights over despotic monarchies.

    Nazi German was a failure of Christianity, the dominant religion, to prevent people from being monsters. If Christianity met their needs, their fate might have been better, like that of the major secular states in the West.

    Christianity, which when unbridled brings us atrocities like inquisitions, is the decadent ideology, not secular humanism. Look at the American Christians rallying around their decadent president. Christianity couldn't prevent that, either.

    And that is a tired old straw man, a reductionist fally. Nobody but the religious is making the argument that we believe that man is nothing but [fill in the blank].

    Is Christianity true? Are we really born spiritually infected with sin and worthy of eternal punishment without worshiping an unseen god? I have no reason to believe that, and consider it a destructive concept.

    Auschwitz was about the people of one religion, Christianity, trying to exterminate another in what they called a final solution. Secular humanists don''t do such things to other people.

    And I'm absolutely convinced that he is wrong. So what, Viktor?

    I define truth as the quality that facts possess, facts being linguistic strings (sentences and paragraphs) that accurately map some portion of reality. Nothing can be called truth that does not derive from empiricism. I assume that you would agree that even if there are truths that cannot be experienced empirically to be discovered or tested , they cannot be called true without that, meaning that the ideas are useless.

    What do you think of this? :

    "How many angels can dance on the head of a pin. No matter what answer you give, literally nothing changes. No decision you will ever make in your entire lifetime can ever be influenced by the answer to this question. If nothing changes even in principle with respect to some proposition being true or false, then the distinction between them just vanishes.

    "Truth has no meaning divorced from any eventual decision making process. The whole point of belief itself is to inform decisions and drive actions. Actions then influence events in the external world, and those effects lead to objective consequences. Take away any of these elements and truth immediately loses all relevance.

    "We should expect similar decisions made under similar circumstances to lead to similar outcomes. Pragmatism says that the ultimate measure of a true or false proposition lies in its capacity to produce expected results. If an idea is true, it can be used in the real world to generate predictable consequences, and different ones if that idea turned out to be false. In other words, the ultimate measure of a true proposition is the capacity to inform decisions under the expectation of desirable consequences.

    "All we need to know is that we have desires and preferences, we make decisions, and we experience sensory perceptions of outcomes. If a man has belief B that some action A will produce desired result D, if B is true, then doing A will achieve D. If A fails to achieve D, then B is false. Either you agree that truth should be measured by its capacity to inform decisions and produce results or you don't. If you agree, then we can have a conversation. And if we disagree about some belief, we have a means to decide the issue.

    "If this is not how your epistemology works - how you define truth - then we can't have a discussion, and I literally don't care what you think, since it has no effect on anything.
    " - anonymous Internet source

    Religion can't do even that.

    What more do you need to know? What other information can you use apart from the expected outcomes for actions you might take.?

    Point? If science can't answer the question, nothing can.

    And religion is nothing but speculation, albeit stated as fact.

    Supernatural is a word used to pretend that things that don't exist are tucked away somewhere where they can't be experienced by any means. That is also the description of the nonexistent - things that cannot even in principle be detected or experienced.

    I'm tired of religion. It's useless except to people who haven't learned to cope without it, a condition created by religion itself. It's a self-licking ice cream cone - "a self-perpetuating system that has no purpose other than to sustain itself" Like cigarettes, it satisfies a need, but a need that it is responsible for.

    Science has made our lives better. It lights up our homes at night, has put men on the moon and brought them home, and has conquered polio and small pox. Science makes our lives longer (80 is the new 60), healthier, more functional (eyeglasses were a great invention), more comfortable, more efficient (especially in communication and transportation), easier, and more interesting, as with this activity we're participating in now involving computers, fiberoptic and electric cables, radio communication, and satellites.

    Religion's accomplishments? Inquisitions, crusades, religious wars, religious genocides, making the lives of homosexuals and atheists more difficult and dangerous, preventing life-saving stem cell research, fighting science in general, etc,

    The Protestants hate the Catholics, The Sunni fight with the Shia. The Muslims hate the Christians, Jews, and Hindus, who hate them back. And on and on.

    Notice the absence of secular humanists in that religious food fight. Follow their lead - tolerance.

    I mentioned eye-glasses. Sure, it's great that people with needs that can only be met with religions have those needs met by it, but that is not an envious position to be in. Better to have those needs met without religion if possible, just as it's great that eyeglasses are available for people that can't see well without them, but isn't it better to not need them in the first place - to have clear vision without help?

    And yes, I understand that to the faithful, praising religion is good and kind and holy, while pointing out its failures is militant atheism.
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Winner Winner x 1
  13. ecco

    ecco Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2016
    Messages:
    6,029
    Ratings:
    +3,075
    Religion:
    atheist
    "as a pawn of drives and reactions, as a mere product of instinct, heredity and environment",

    Does that sound like he is talking about God's creatures or the results of "mindless evolution"?

    And yet it was Christian Germans following the teachings of Martin Luther that put him into prison camps. Not too insightful was he?


    Why do you think atheist-anythings would be divorced from values? Are you under the impression that good only comes from religion/spirituality? Are you under the impression that evil only comes from atheism?

    If so, see above.
     
  14. ecco

    ecco Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2016
    Messages:
    6,029
    Ratings:
    +3,075
    Religion:
    atheist
    Yep, yep and yep. Us atheists don't like art; don't care about philosophy and we sure don't like fun.

    If we had our way, we would burn all books that have naughty pictures in them.

    If we had our way, we would cover up statues that have an exposed woman's breast showing.

    If we had our way, we wouldn't allow blacks and whites and browns and yellows to intermarry with whites.

    If we had our way, we would make sure homosexuals and transgenders stayed where they belong - in the closet.

    If we had our way, we would forbid the use of alcohol and other such stuff.

    If we had our way, we would insist the only "right" way to have sex is between a man and a woman who are married to each other and to do so only for the purpose of making kids.

    If we had our way, we would not allow people to dance. All that swinging and swaying and touching - disgusting.





    Oh, wait...that's you religious guys.




    @QM, Sorry for interrupting your discussion.
     
  15. QuestioningMind

    QuestioningMind Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2010
    Messages:
    2,197
    Ratings:
    +1,599
     
  16. QuestioningMind

    QuestioningMind Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2010
    Messages:
    2,197
    Ratings:
    +1,599

    And you're still wrong.

    LOL You KEEP saying that, yet I'm STILL waiting for you to offer up a superior method for determining how the universe works. What OTHER method has enabled you to communicate via the Internet? What OTHER method figured out germ theory? What OTHER method explains that volcanoes are the result of natural geological activity and NOT the result of the volcano God being angry? UNTIL you offer up this superior method, you can CLAIM that I'm wrong all you want... but it won't actually be true.

    It's logically impossible for us to determine that, so I must contend that it is your biased opinion.

    It's logically impossible for us to determine WHAT? I wrote:

    It's certainly POSSIBLE that there is a better method and someday we may figure out what it is, but until that time comes, the scientific method is the most reliable method we have available.

    Are you saying it's impossible to determine if there is a better method? Apparently you're right, because YOU certainly haven't offered up a better one.

    Well, that's just a semantic point, but even so, then you pretty much just proved that "supernature" exists (though I would take issue with your choice of term relative to your own definition of it)

    LOL... my original post compared mysticism to the supernatural which YOU said was wrong... and NOW you're agreeing. Just because science has no way of measuring a completely subjective thing like beauty, perfection, and honor does NOT mean that any of those things are Supernatural or mystical in any way.

    That we have asked the question pretty much proves that they exist.

    WHAT???? I asked how we distinguish between things that people propose to be true that science cannot currently detect or measure which actually ARE true and those which are NOT actually true. And your response is That we have asked the question pretty much proves that they exist. SO, the fact that I ask the question do magical fairies that science cannot detect exist means that magical fairies that science can't detect actually DO exist?

    Good grief... that means you're willing to believe in ANY ridiculous claim anyone might choose to make.

    Wow! That bias of yours is really blinding you. Those other methods already exist, and millions of humans are already engaged in that exploration.

    Really? We ALREADY have a method for reliably determining if a fantastical claim that can't be detected or confirmed by science is a REAL claim or a FALSE claim? Please DO share!

    Actually, a good many atheists are suggesting that religion be done away with all together, and have little to no understanding or appreciation of art as being anything more than an entertainment commodity.

    I could care less what any other atheist may or may not suggest. You're talking to THIS atheist.

    Then it really isn't that important to most of us (unlike yourself).

    If you say so... though I suspect you'd be singing a very different tune if one of your relatives died from a simple infection just because that unimportant scientific method that led to the discovery of penicillin had never existed. It's really rather sad that you take for granted all of the truly amazing benefits you enjoy on a daily basis because of the scientific method, while at the same time moronically suggesting that it hasn't been the most effective method we've ever come up with to consistently determine how the universe works.

    atheistic 'scientism'

    A completely made up term to describe a totally fictional viewpoint.
     
  17. Spartan

    Spartan Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2019
    Messages:
    804
    Ratings:
    +106
    Religion:
    Christian
    If one is an atheist and 'spiritual' then that spirituality is not from God but from the devil. After all, the devil is spiritual.
     
  18. atanu

    atanu Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2010
    Messages:
    12,930
    Ratings:
    +2,259
    Religion:
    Hindu Sanatana Dharma
    I will not go to that extreme since many atheists are actually atheists because their father/mother was atheist. And devil is possibly one's own proclivities.:)
     
  19. atanu

    atanu Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2010
    Messages:
    12,930
    Ratings:
    +2,259
    Religion:
    Hindu Sanatana Dharma
    But:

    Does Spirituality Make You Happy?
    Spirituality for stress relief?
    The Science Of Spirituality: A Psychologist And A Neuroscientist Explain Being 'In The Flow'

    And a very comprehensive review, which concludes:

    Religious/spiritual beliefs and practices are commonly used by both medical and psychiatric patients to cope with illness and other stressful life changes. A large volume of research shows that people who are more R/S have better mental health and adapt more quickly to health problems compared to those who are less R/S. These possible benefits to mental health and well-being have physiological consequences that impact physical health, affect the risk of disease, and influence response to treatment. In this paper I have reviewed and summarized hundreds of quantitative original data-based research reports examining relationships between R/S and health.

    Religion, Spirituality, and Health: The Research and Clinical Implications
     
  20. atanu

    atanu Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2010
    Messages:
    12,930
    Ratings:
    +2,259
    Religion:
    Hindu Sanatana Dharma
    A neuroscientist speaks.

     
Loading...