Ever notice how atheists are virtually always on the opposite side from God on many issues?

[Windwalker]

Then you use a different definition of the word.

Clearly. I have made this point repeatedly to you, offering support from acadmeic sources showing how your use of faith is woefully inadequate, not supported by serious researchers, and how that because of your ignoring what I have offered, even in recent posts of the past several days, we are, and now remain at an impasse.

I do not accept your cynical view of faith in the human experience as synonymous with bad, or unjustifiable beliefs. You cannot find any support that faith is nothing more than that by serious academic researchers. And yet you claim the higher ground of reason? Where then are your academic sources, please?

Erroneous according to the standards of critical analysis for evaluating evidence and the soundness of arguments.

Erroneous to the standards of modernity, yes. But it is logically consistent with the standards of a mythic structure reality. I've said this multiple time in the past few posts, explaining this at great length.

Have you not been reading and understanding my posts, which you claim are easily understood? Yet, here we are, with you ignoring everything I brought up without addressing any of it directly, and just repeating yourself as if I didn't say anything at all. This is why I don't believe you do follow what is being said.

Irrational is fine.

So you see children as irrational creatures then? You would refer to your grandchildren as irrational thinkers, would you?

If you believe myths, you have unjustified beliefs meaning that they can only be believed by faith.

But they aren't unjustified. Myths are symbolic stories that typically have experiential referents, and hence they are justified to be "believed in". The earlier stage mind typically holds them literally, because conceptually it cannot think of them as representative of real, tangible abstractions, such as "wisdom" is a literal woman from heaven.

It's comparable to the difference between concrete operational and formal operational stages in cognitive development. Even so, even if held literally in their minds in the mythic-literal stage of faith development, belief in the "goddess wisdom" brings about actual experiences of real things, such as hope, faith, or love, all of which are matters of the heart, or lived experience.

So since it is effective in its functionality, that becomes the justification. It then becomes a justified belief, even if it is technically mistaken that "wisdom" is not an actual woman, but a principle dressed up as a woman for the sake of the mythic-literal mind to translate complex abstractions into concrete conceptual ideas the heart can look to symbolically, even if that is all occurring at the subconscious level in the human psyche.

Respectfully, if you wish to continue this exchange, you will need to address specifically the points I have raised such as all of these above, and not simply ignore them and repeat yourself. As I said, I see us at an impasse because this is what has been happening. You're not addressing that article from Stanford on what Faith is. You ignored my reference to the Fowler's work on faith, etc.

I more than welcome any challenge to the points I've raised. Real challenges helps me to grow and refine my perspectives. But simply ignoring them is not challenging the points I've raised. That just comes off as doubling down on your beliefs in support of your faith in the structures modernity to offer meaning and sense to life for you. As I've said, beliefs are used in service of supporting one's faith, but they are not synonymous with it. That is what appears to be happening here.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

You must live in a place where you are surrounded by ignorance.

Yes. We all do. Why does that matter to this discussion?

A Christian believes in Christ. One does not have to believe in the creed enforced by the Roman Empire.

Then you have your own definition of Christian. That definition makes me a Christian. I also believe that Jesus lived and was crucified.

If you mean that it has no value to a materialist, obviously not.

Theology as I defined it - thought based in the assumption that a god exists - generates no useful ideas. If you disagree, you should be able to produce one, but you can't.

Nobody forced [religion] upon me. It was not shoved down my throat.

If you are the same religion as your parents and they indoctrinated you with it in your youth, then it wasn't "shoved down [your] throat" because it didn't need to be.

my soul was looking for something worthwhile and significant.

I found meaning elsewhere, outside of religion.

Well, can you demonstrate that rocket-science is of benefit to mankind, when we can't even look after each other here on planet earth?

Rocket science will be man's salvation if it diverts an extinction level asteroid or allows man to leave earth when it becomes uninhabitable.

Of course, you can claim that you will let them make up their own minds.. That's not taking responsibility.. In any case, they will do just that, when they become of age.

But will they be qualified to do that when they are old enough? Not if they haven't learned critical thinking skills. They'll make up their minds using whatever skills they have, which may be few.

I find it very easy to show how [technology] has created more problems than its solved.

Technology has created zero problems. Those are the result of insufficiently regulated capitalism and authoritarian regimes.

SZ: How is your dogma of any benefit to children?
MI: Truth is of benefit to everybody

If you do not perceive it to be true, then that is your perception .. but not mine.

You've said nothing there except that you consider your dogma is beneficial truth, but not how or why. The skeptic considers theological assertions useless and, being unfalsifiable, "not even wrong." If you disagree, please demonstrate what dogma you call truth, why it deserves to be called that, and what the specific benefit of knowing it is. You can't, can you? And if not, why is that? What else is true about an irrefutable statement?

 

[muhammad_isa]

You sound like you have an interesting story to tell, inshallah..

Yes .. are you all sitting comfortably? ..then let us begin
..but where to start.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Then you have your own definition of Christian. That definition makes me a Christian. I also believe that Jesus lived and was crucified..

No .. it is not just a case of believing Jesus exists .. it is a case of believing that he is Holy,
and worshipped G-d.
i.e. believe in the Lord's prayer ..

Our Father, whom art in heaven,
hallowed be thy name..
...

How you love to twist things..

Technology has created zero problems. Those are the result of insufficiently regulated capitalism and authoritarian regimes.

That's just being pedantic .. naturally, it is how mankind employs it..

You've said nothing there except that you consider your dogma is beneficial truth, but not how or why. The skeptic considers theological assertions useless and, being unfalsifiable, "not even wrong." If you disagree, please demonstrate what dogma you call truth..

It's a waste of time..
You are just amusing yourself, and have no real interest in truth.

 

[F1fan]

It's a waste of time..
You are just amusing yourself, and have no real interest in truth.

When you say truth here you mean your subjective religious belief which most of the world doesn't value?

 

[blü 2]

There's a reason for that, but they cannot understand it due to spiritual blindness. It's not necessarily their fault. God doesn't permit everyone to believe in him - yet. In the end, ALL will believe and follow Jesus.

You've hit the nail on the head! Unbelievers tend to be on the opposite side to God.

To be fair, so do many believers, of course.

For instance, God thinks invasive war is great, it's fine to massacre a conquered population, though you can keep the virgins for raping later, God is cool with human sacrifices, murderous religious intolerance, slavery as normality, women as property. God sits on [his] hands watching kids drown in pools, motor accidents happen, on and on, never appears. never says, never does.

I can't pretend to speak for all unbelievers, but I find much of the morality of God to be pretty dang repulsive.

 

[F1fan]

That's the kind of statement that makes me see that you don't understand what I'm talking about. You say it's their truth, but it's based on falsehoods. My argument is that if it is consistent with available truths as they understand them to be, given that particular framework or stage through which they see reality, it is not based on falsehoods to them.

That they don't understand that they have accepted falsehoods as a basis for their beliefs is WHY they are mistaken. These are avoidable mistakes. Creationists aren't correct in their little imagined truth, they are wrong according to what facts reveals about reality. We know they think they understand something and that they believe they are correct, it is that they are NOT correct that is important. Maybe not to you, but it is to those who actually value understanding what is true.

They aren't necessarily being sloppy with facts. Their reasoning may in fact be perfectly sound, yet their conclusions may be error to those who understand larger contexts, through larger frameworks.

No, their thinking is sloppy. You can't have sound reasoning and false conclusions. If you have sound reasoning you have sound conclusions, and that requires following the rules of logic with the intention to understand what is true. You mention larger frameworks but don't give examples, nor explain how they aid reasoning and sound conclusions.

My point is that their reasoning isn't irrationaol, wrong, or based on falsehoods. You claim because you see it differently from a larger context, they are being irrational when they are not. So far, nothing you are saying is showing me you recognize this.

Then you are coming to invalid conclusions. Your error already shows us you don't understand that sound reasoning results in sound conclusions, and false conclusions can only mean mistakes in reasoning.

Again, you are looking at this through a higher stage of development.

I worked to learn how to thinking analytically. I work to remain objective and seek truth. Nothing prevents others from doing this themselves except their own biases and mental conditions.

Do you believe children are irrational idiots because they don't see what you as a mature adult can given your stage of development?

I wouldn't think this about children, but I'm disappointed you did.

I think what you may struggle with here, is that one's biological age, is not an indication of their maturity and sophistication in certain areas. We are all children in our thinking, limited in what we are able to recognize or comprehend, not based upon our biological ages, but based upon our developmental stages in that particular area of life.

I never brought any of this up, you did. So your guess that I struggle with this is incorrect.

When it comes to the line of spiritual intelligence for instance, a great many people still think within that mythic-literal stage. I wonder if this might be why you keep assuming they are functioning at the same level as you are, or that they should be and their only issue is they aren't being rational critical thinkers like you, that they are not looking at the evidence clearly as you are?

I never said I assume any such thing. If a member decides to post their beliefs and arguments, and I have something to say, I will respond to the content. They are responsible for themselves.

Of course I am serious. I believe that most people assume that there thoughts about reality are what reality actually is. That's the general rule, not the exception.

We humans have cognitive tools to better discern real from imaginary, assuming sound mental health. Not all people know these tools, nor have an interest in discerning true from imaginary. Their motives vary, as many of these discussions reveal.

They absolutely do not accept relativism or recognize its validity in the least bit. They see themselves as right and everyone else as lost. They assume all religions are lost, because they see themselves as right. And the reason that see science as irrational, is because to them, given their framework of reality, it cannot and does not fit, and therefore it's crazy or a lie.

I agree, and I point out that them thinking they are correct is not true or relevant when facts are what we follow, and they reject. I am curious why they reject truth for belief.

You on the other hand recognize that they are not thinking at your level, because you can recognize in your own history how you used to think in those terms, at some point in live anyway, at some age, and see the difference between an earlier stage mythic/magic thinking level, and your own newer more sophisticated or advanced rationalist critical thinker level. Why they see what you are doing as irrational, is because it is quite literally beyond them, or over their heads. But you see them as irrational because you expect that should be able to think in the same terms as you because the evidence makes all this perfectly clear to you.

I disagree that understanding evolution is not beyond all creationists. My uncle was a chemist for pharma, but he was a creationist. He obviously has the intelligence to understand evolution but his family upringing indocrinated him into a biased religious belief. If creationists can understand the basics of that idea then they can understand the baiscs of biology. For one reason or another they were exposed to bad ideas and they found it attractive.

That's recognizing relativism. Truth is relative to the stage of development they are at. They are playing checkers, and you are playing chess. But you see the same black and white squares board, so you assume they are playing the same game as you, and should know better. Right?

There are too many variables to set people in one game or another. All of us have advantages and disadvantages by chance, whether it is inherent intelligence, an educated familiy, a stable city, adequate finances, health, etc. Or the opposite scenario. My uncle was raised in a creationist household and he adopted it, and even held on through college and work in pharma. My cousins are creationists too. In fact I never heard of it until I visited them and saw a pamphlet that claimed creationism is true. I thought it was a comic book and laughed, and my aunt was pissed. I couldn't believe educated people believed in this, I was stunned.

No, it's not personal truths, I'm talking about. I'm talking about collective realities, shared languages, levels of development that makes them have common modes of thinking, seeing, translating, and experiencing reality. These are "collective consciousness" matters. "Consensus realities", is another great term to see these as. Truth to us is largely filtered through our collective cultural frameworks, "Mythic" is one mode. "Rational" is another. And so forth.

This is how veople end up believing in false frameworks like creationism. Social influence plays a big part, but we as individuals are responsible for our own brains and how we use them, and how we allow negative and false influences. We need to discern real from imaginary when we are exposed to the ideas of others. The naive and gullible will be susceptible to adopting irrational belief.

I've argued to no avail, that to them, they believe they have the evidence. Otherwise, they wouldn't believe it. But evidence to them, is not sufficient evidence to those at your stage. They are on floors 2 and 3, you are on floor 4. They aren't on the same floor. They are living in different realities, created by their language and modes of perception and translation. It's not just a different language for the same thing, but a different kind of reality altogether.

This is complex to convey what is meant. For now, let's see if what is said above is understood first, which so far I'm not hearing it yet.

I think it is all fairly simple. You might be on the wrong floor looking down.

 

[Windwalker]

That they don't understand that they have accepted falsehoods as a basis for their beliefs is WHY they are mistaken. These are avoidable mistakes. Creationists aren't correct in their little imagined truth, they are wrong according to what facts reveals about reality.

They are mistaken in trying to take a mythic-level view of reality and creation, and attempt to make it a mental or scientific-level view of reality. You are correct. Creationism is false science. I completely agree.

But what you have yet to show you understand what I am talking about is, that a view that God is the underlying truth of reality itself, from a mythic-level reality, is itself a mythic-level truth. It's not a scientific truth, but it is a mythic-level truth. "Creationism" is distorted theological view pretending to be science. I've said it multiple times, and will say it again, it's both bad science and bad faith. It's a confusion.

We know they think they understand something and that they believe they are correct, it is that they are NOT correct that is important. Maybe not to you, but it is to those who actually value understanding what is true.

They are not correct to me either, if they are trying to claim Creationism is valid science, or that it negates everything that science has to say about how the world was created. Creationism is not simply believing God created everything, but is a specific form of theology that pretends to be science.

However, that does not mean they are wrong that there is an Ultimate Reality out of which all of creation comes into being. That's not anything that science can either affirm or deny. But Creationism, cleary can and should be denied. It's a pseudoscience.

No, their thinking is sloppy. You can't have sound reasoning and false conclusions. If you have sound reasoning you have sound conclusions, and that requires following the rules of logic with the intention to understand what is true. You mention larger frameworks but don't give examples, nor explain how they aid reasoning and sound conclusions.

I have multiple times explained the different stages or levels or structures of consciousness. I showed how that this is all academically supported, nothing I made up, nor is woo-woo by any stretch of the imagination. I'll make a better attempt here to explain this more clearly, since it's clear it's not being understood up to this point.

Let's start with the work of Jean Gebser from his seminal work, "The Ever Present Origin". From this article here describing basic understanding of a few of these structures/stages from his dense work I linked to for you. The Work of Jean Gebser

MYTHICAL​

With the emergence of a “two-dimensional” structure in the Mythical, we see self reflection become a new mode of being, with this structure able to be aware of itself, and as of having an animating “Soul”. Unlike the Magic of the stage prior, Mythical cultures are threaded together with the bonds of storytelling, with tales and journeys as representational, albeit still literal, of archetypal human experiences. This stage is best represented by the circle, with the recognition of cyclical events like the moon, seasons, planets, etc.​

​

A defining element of the Mythical structure is our old friend Duality, with polarity becoming the ground upon which this consciousness structure is built. Good and Evil, Right and Wrong, Heaven and Hell — these polarities are the constructs of the Mythic mind, with these natural laws reigning supreme over the laws of man that we’ll see emerge in the Mental stage.​

​

The three main Western religions remaining today are each built upon varying degrees of the Mythical stage, with these grand stories still capturing billions of hearts and minds around the world. The forthcoming Mental stage sees otherwise.​

​

MENTAL​

With the Mental structure, we now have development of the “three-dimensional” awareness driven by logic, as presented by the triangle “the base of the triangle with its two points lying in opposition represents the dual contraries or antinomies which are unified at the point or apex.”[15]​

​

The emergence of logical, discursive dialogue allowed Western science to evolve took centuries to come online, and when it did it stood as a stark refutation of the stages prior as highly inferior. This stage first began to unfurl after the Dark Ages found new points of light with architectural single-point perspective, the three-dimensional perspective as manifest into space with the erection of the palaces, coliseums, and massive, mind-bending churches adorned with the stories of Myth, built upon the math of Mental.​

​

Gebser makes an extremely important distinction here, in highlighting the deficient side of the Mental stage, in what he calls “rational”. It’s unhealthy because it seeks dominance over the other structures, with the reductive perspective that humans are to be solely rational, devoid of soul or spiril, and in denial of magic. This can and often leads to extreme materialism, where the love of wisdom, or, Philosophy, is replaced with productivity and efficiency. Contemplation is replaced with action, while the technological solutions of this Rationalist deficiency only lead to the advent of… more problems.​

​

This creates a world where materialism overrides metaphysical, and a “value-free” way of life that only leads to living “without value”. However, with the exhaustion of possibilities of the Mental and its deficient offspring in the Rational, we now find the emergence of what Gebser called the “Integral.”​

​

INTEGRAL​

The “four dimensional” stage as represented by the Sphere, Integral perspective is wholly unique in that it no longer sees its own stage as the “only” or “real” stage, rather seeks to better understand each stage. Key to the Integral is the ability to see the whole, and that all parts are representative of that whole, driven by simultaneity. What was a dualistic either/or, right or wrong approach of stages prior now becomes a ever-inclusive spectrum of thought, where the greater context is now nested within a greater context within a greater context within… all the way up and down.​

​

Gebser points to the layering of Time onto Space in pointing to Picasso’s recent “cubist” period, where he sought to integrate multiple perspectives together at the same time, within the given 2D canvas or 3D sculpture.​

​

Gebser called this “aperspectival” thinking, the latin “a” meaning “many”, or the ability to see multiple perspectives simultaneously. Rather than a black and white image, we now have a full color kaleidoscope of interconnected, holographic reality. He highlights this process as one of transparency; as we unfurl deeper and deeper complexity of thought, we are able to do so with greater levels of transparency.​

​

Prior to the Integral stage, time was seen as having the categories of past, present and future, as wholly distinct one from the other. Time is linear, from one point to the next along a never-ending line. With the emergence and unfolding from the “Ever-Present Origin”, we now see a meta-perspective that takes into account the efficiencies and deficiencies of all prior perspectives.​

​

The ultimate task of the Integral is to bear Witness to these structures in our own language and actions, as difficult as it may be. Rather than seek to install one stage of programming into our operating system, calling it the “one true system”, we now seek ways to ensure each stage of consciousness is as healthy as it possibly can be. The task of Integral isn’t for everyone-everywhere-no-matter-what to be Integral, rather, to be the healthy expression of whatever stage one may be, in hopes of allowing the great Unfolding to happen as swiftly and effectively as possible.​

​

continued....

 

[Windwalker]

Now to expand upon this, other theorists and researchers have developed this further with Beck and Graves Spiral Dynamics

Spiral Dynamics (SD) is a model of the evolutionary development of individuals, organizations, and societies. It was initially developed by Don Edward Beck and Christopher Cowan based on the emergent cyclical theory of Clare W. Graves, combined with memetics as proposed by Richard Dawkins and further developed by Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi. A later collaboration between Beck and Ken Wilber produced Spiral Dynamics Integral (SDi).[1] Several variations of Spiral Dynamics continue to exist, both independently and incorporated into or drawing on Wilber's Integral theory.[2] In addition to influencing both integral theory and metamodernism,[3] Spiral Dynamics is noted for its applications in management theory and business ethics,[4][5][6][7] and as an example of applied memetics.[8]​

​

Spiral Dynamics describes how value systems and worldviews emerge from the interaction of "life conditions" and the mind's capacities.[9] The emphasis on life conditions as essential to the progression through value systems is unusual among similar theories, and leads to the view that no level is inherently positive or negative, but rather is a response to the local environment.[10] Through these value systems, groups and cultures structure their societies and individuals integrate within them. Each distinct set of values is developed as a response to solving the problems of the previous system. Changes between states may occur incrementally (first order change) or in a sudden breakthrough (second order change).[11] The value systems develop in a specific order, and the most important question when considering the value system being expressed in a particular behavior is why the behavior occurs.[12]​

You can read about how the different stages look, and see the overlap between these and Gebser's basic 5 structures or stages.

My point is that you are looking at the mythic-stage, from your current mental-stage, and judging them based upon what the world looks like from that worldview. They are wrong, and you are right. A child is wrong, and an adult is right, as another way to put that, according to this type of reasoning that cannot see it's own view as a view itself.

Then you are coming to invalid conclusions. Your error already shows us you don't understand that sound reasoning results in sound conclusions, and false conclusions can only mean mistakes in reasoning.

I have more that sound reasoning and critical thinking. Spend some time with what I just posted, and then ask yourself if that looks like just "bad-reasoning" to you.

I worked to learn how to thinking analytically.

Good. Now apply it to what I just shared. I have a lot more once you begin to penetrate that and start to see what it is I've been talking about.

Pay particular attention to the Integral Stage that I quoted above. You'll hear everything I've been saying reiterated in that brief explanation of it, particularly things like this:

it no longer sees its own stage as the “only” or “real” stage, rather seeks to better understand each stage​

​

What was a dualistic either/or, right or wrong approach of stages prior now becomes a ever-inclusive spectrum of thought,​

​

Gebser called this “aperspectival” thinking, the latin “a” meaning “many”, or the ability to see multiple perspectives simultaneously. Rather than a black and white image, we now have a full color kaleidoscope of interconnected, holographic reality.​

​

we now see a meta-perspective that takes into account the efficiencies and deficiencies of all prior perspectives.​

​

as we unfurl deeper and deeper complexity of thought, we are able to do so with greater levels of transparency.​

​

we now seek ways to ensure each stage of consciousness is as healthy as it possibly can be.​

That last one there really defines where I am coming from. "Creationsim" is not a healthy mythic-stage. It's bad and unhealthy because it's neither good faith nor good science. And likewise this so-called "scepticism" of the Mental or Rational Stage, is actually itself bad reason. It is an unhealthy expression of the Rational stage, because it is not actually healthy scepticism, but rather and unhealthy cynicism which is close-mindedness.

Each stage has its healthy and unhealthy expressions. What you focus on is the unhealthy expressions of that, and judge the entire stage by that. And so do fundamentalists looking at all other stages. From my point of view, it's all the pot calling the kettle black. Neither sees themselves doing the same thing those they are pointing a finger at.

There is a healthy expression of the mythic-stage, just as there is a healthy expression of the mental-stage.

I wouldn't think this about children, but I'm disappointed you did.

I don't view children as irrational or idiots. But do you view those who believe in God that way, even when they are not talking about garbage like Creationism?

We humans have cognitive tools to better discern real from imaginary, assuming sound mental health.

Do children have those same tools as adults and should be able to see the world as adults, when they are still in their teens?

Not all people know these tools, nor have an interest in discerning true from imaginary. Their motives vary, as many of these discussions reveal.

Better stated is that not all people have access to these tool, or are able to utilize them even if they had access to them. Just being exposed to it, and even having the desire or motive to want to make use of them, means that they have developed the capacity to yet. It's a growth thing, not an availability thing, in other words.

For instance, I have exposed you to the tools from postmodernity and integral, but that alone is not going to mean you get that and can reason from those modalities. Being able to demonstrate knowledge is much different than simply hearing about it. Take Creationists trying to make mythic stories scientific for example. They aren't actually thinking in science terms. They're imitating it only, and it shows they aren't at that level yet.

 

[F1fan]

But what you have yet to show you understand what I am talking about is, that a view that God is the underlying truth of reality itself, from a mythic-level reality, is itself a mythic-level truth. It's not a scientific truth, but it is a mythic-level truth. "Creationism" is distorted theological view pretending to be science. I've said it multiple times, and will say it again, it's both bad science and bad faith. It's a confusion.

I have been clear that the word "god" doesn't correlate to any actual, known phenomenon. It does have meaning to the majority of humans due to social influence and meaning assignment. Myths have been an important element to the evolution of humans and cultures. How these myths fit in to increasing modernity is a big question. It's not a clear fork in the road, there are many prongs that appeal to a variety of people, from atheists all the way to religious extremists. He don;t have to manage the many meanings of the word "god", but we do have to manage how people behave via their meaning assignment.

They are not correct to me either, if they are trying to claim Creationism is valid science, or that it negates everything that science has to say about how the world was created. Creationism is not simply believing God created everything, but is a specific form of theology that pretends to be science.

However, that does not mean they are wrong that there is an Ultimate Reality out of which all of creation comes into being. That's not anything that science can either affirm or deny. But Creationism, cleary can and should be denied. It's a pseudoscience.

The phrase "Ultimate Reality" has no more facts related to it that the word "God". For any humans who wants to understand what is true about how things are these two ideas need to be set on a shelf until facts indicate they are true. The word "reality" is sufficient to represent what actually exists. "Ultimate Realty" is on par with Creationism.

I have multiple times explained the different stages or levels or structures of consciousness. I showed how that this is all academically supported, nothing I made up, nor is woo-woo by any stretch of the imagination. I'll make a better attempt here to explain this more clearly, since it's clear it's not being understood up to this point.

Sure, there is no doubt that a guy stoned is at a different level of consciousness than a stone sober person. I have no disputes with what experts describe as levels of consciousness. I have felt fervor and excitement like any other human, so know what that is like. I have been so glucose depleted that my brain no longer functions accurately. Consciousness is directly tied to how the brain is functioning materially. Brain damage, mental illness, chemical imballances, all distort how the person perceives their environment and how they determine reality. There is a lot of woowoo stuff out there that is more speculative than descriptive, so I tend to be wary about these types of claims.

Let's start with the work of Jean Gebser from his seminal work, "The Ever Present Origin". From this article here describing basic understanding of a few of these structures/stages from his dense work I linked to for you. The Work of Jean Gebser

MYTHICAL​

With the emergence of a “two-dimensional” structure in the Mythical, we see self reflection become a new mode of being, with this structure able to be aware of itself, and as of having an animating “Soul”. Unlike the Magic of the stage prior, Mythical cultures are threaded together with the bonds of storytelling, with tales and journeys as representational, albeit still literal, of archetypal human experiences. This stage is best represented by the circle, with the recognition of cyclical events like the moon, seasons, planets, etc.​

​

A defining element of the Mythical structure is our old friend Duality, with polarity becoming the ground upon which this consciousness structure is built. Good and Evil, Right and Wrong, Heaven and Hell — these polarities are the constructs of the Mythic mind, with these natural laws reigning supreme over the laws of man that we’ll see emerge in the Mental stage.​

​

The three main Western religions remaining today are each built upon varying degrees of the Mythical stage, with these grand stories still capturing billions of hearts and minds around the world. The forthcoming Mental stage sees otherwise.​

​

MENTAL​

With the Mental structure, we now have development of the “three-dimensional” awareness driven by logic, as presented by the triangle “the base of the triangle with its two points lying in opposition represents the dual contraries or antinomies which are unified at the point or apex.”[15]​

​

The emergence of logical, discursive dialogue allowed Western science to evolve took centuries to come online, and when it did it stood as a stark refutation of the stages prior as highly inferior. This stage first began to unfurl after the Dark Ages found new points of light with architectural single-point perspective, the three-dimensional perspective as manifest into space with the erection of the palaces, coliseums, and massive, mind-bending churches adorned with the stories of Myth, built upon the math of Mental.​

​

Gebser makes an extremely important distinction here, in highlighting the deficient side of the Mental stage, in what he calls “rational”. It’s unhealthy because it seeks dominance over the other structures, with the reductive perspective that humans are to be solely rational, devoid of soul or spiril, and in denial of magic. This can and often leads to extreme materialism, where the love of wisdom, or, Philosophy, is replaced with productivity and efficiency. Contemplation is replaced with action, while the technological solutions of this Rationalist deficiency only lead to the advent of… more problems.​

​

This creates a world where materialism overrides metaphysical, and a “value-free” way of life that only leads to living “without value”. However, with the exhaustion of possibilities of the Mental and its deficient offspring in the Rational, we now find the emergence of what Gebser called the “Integral.”​

​

INTEGRAL​

The “four dimensional” stage as represented by the Sphere, Integral perspective is wholly unique in that it no longer sees its own stage as the “only” or “real” stage, rather seeks to better understand each stage. Key to the Integral is the ability to see the whole, and that all parts are representative of that whole, driven by simultaneity. What was a dualistic either/or, right or wrong approach of stages prior now becomes a ever-inclusive spectrum of thought, where the greater context is now nested within a greater context within a greater context within… all the way up and down.​

​

Gebser points to the layering of Time onto Space in pointing to Picasso’s recent “cubist” period, where he sought to integrate multiple perspectives together at the same time, within the given 2D canvas or 3D sculpture.​

​

Gebser called this “aperspectival” thinking, the latin “a” meaning “many”, or the ability to see multiple perspectives simultaneously. Rather than a black and white image, we now have a full color kaleidoscope of interconnected, holographic reality. He highlights this process as one of transparency; as we unfurl deeper and deeper complexity of thought, we are able to do so with greater levels of transparency.​

​

Prior to the Integral stage, time was seen as having the categories of past, present and future, as wholly distinct one from the other. Time is linear, from one point to the next along a never-ending line. With the emergence and unfolding from the “Ever-Present Origin”, we now see a meta-perspective that takes into account the efficiencies and deficiencies of all prior perspectives.​

​

The ultimate task of the Integral is to bear Witness to these structures in our own language and actions, as difficult as it may be. Rather than seek to install one stage of programming into our operating system, calling it the “one true system”, we now seek ways to ensure each stage of consciousness is as healthy as it possibly can be. The task of Integral isn’t for everyone-everywhere-no-matter-what to be Integral, rather, to be the healthy expression of whatever stage one may be, in hopes of allowing the great Unfolding to happen as swiftly and effectively as possible.​

​

continued....

continued>>

 

[F1fan]

Now to expand upon this, other theorists and researchers have developed this further with Beck and Graves Spiral Dynamics

Spiral Dynamics (SD) is a model of the evolutionary development of individuals, organizations, and societies. It was initially developed by Don Edward Beck and Christopher Cowan based on the emergent cyclical theory of Clare W. Graves, combined with memetics as proposed by Richard Dawkins and further developed by Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi. A later collaboration between Beck and Ken Wilber produced Spiral Dynamics Integral (SDi).[1] Several variations of Spiral Dynamics continue to exist, both independently and incorporated into or drawing on Wilber's Integral theory.[2] In addition to influencing both integral theory and metamodernism,[3] Spiral Dynamics is noted for its applications in management theory and business ethics,[4][5][6][7] and as an example of applied memetics.[8]​

​

Spiral Dynamics describes how value systems and worldviews emerge from the interaction of "life conditions" and the mind's capacities.[9] The emphasis on life conditions as essential to the progression through value systems is unusual among similar theories, and leads to the view that no level is inherently positive or negative, but rather is a response to the local environment.[10] Through these value systems, groups and cultures structure their societies and individuals integrate within them. Each distinct set of values is developed as a response to solving the problems of the previous system. Changes between states may occur incrementally (first order change) or in a sudden breakthrough (second order change).[11] The value systems develop in a specific order, and the most important question when considering the value system being expressed in a particular behavior is why the behavior occurs.[12]​

You can read about how the different stages look, and see the overlap between these and Gebser's basic 5 structures or stages.

My point is that you are looking at the mythic-stage, from your current mental-stage, and judging them based upon what the world looks like from that worldview.

Since, as you frame it, I am operating at a higher level than the fervent religious folk then it is their problem. Am I to lower my dialog to their level? No. These aren't children who lack life experience and brain development, these are adults who for one reason or another ended up believing irrational sets of ideas.

They are wrong, and you are right. A child is wrong, and an adult is right, as another way to put that, according to this type of reasoning that cannot see it's own view as a view itself.

We aren't debating children. I'm not sure why you keep mentioning them as if they represent what's going on in these debates.

I have more that sound reasoning and critical thinking. Spend some time with what I just posted, and then ask yourself if that looks like just "bad-reasoning" to you.

Irrelevant. You said that there can be invalid conclusions from sound reasoning, and that isn't accurate.

Good. Now apply it to what I just shared. I have a lot more once you begin to penetrate that and start to see what it is I've been talking about.

What you posted seems more beneficial to those who have learned critical thinking skills but still want to believe in religion and metaphysics, and want to have religious experience. I don't see anything you outlined that is beneficial for me. I don't have any use for religion or metaphysics.

Pay particular attention to the Integral Stage that I quoted above. You'll hear everything I've been saying reiterated in that brief explanation of it, particularly things like this:

it no longer sees its own stage as the “only” or “real” stage, rather seeks to better understand each stage​

​

What was a dualistic either/or, right or wrong approach of stages prior now becomes a ever-inclusive spectrum of thought,​

​

Gebser called this “aperspectival” thinking, the latin “a” meaning “many”, or the ability to see multiple perspectives simultaneously. Rather than a black and white image, we now have a full color kaleidoscope of interconnected, holographic reality.​

​

we now see a meta-perspective that takes into account the efficiencies and deficiencies of all prior perspectives.​

​

as we unfurl deeper and deeper complexity of thought, we are able to do so with greater levels of transparency.​

​

we now seek ways to ensure each stage of consciousness is as healthy as it possibly can be.​

Critical thinkers can be at the highest levels and still understand what religion offers some folks, that doesn't mean we have any use for it. It seems to me a good number of critical thinkers are able to understand multiple persvectives, like examining results in science and also pondering alternative results. For example we can learn about Covid 19 and the deaths that occurred, and then imagine a more deadly virus that kills many more. Some of us are humanists and we imagine a better world than what current political and social trends indicate.

That last one there really defines where I am coming from. "Creationsim" is not a healthy mythic-stage. It's bad and unhealthy because it's neither good faith nor good science. And likewise this so-called "scepticism" of the Mental or Rational Stage, is actually itself bad reason. It is an unhealthy expression of the Rational stage, because it is not actually healthy scepticism, but rather and unhealthy cynicism which is close-mindedness.

That is the advantage of following facts and applying reason to negative influences and beliefs. Creationists can't see beyond what they believe is true. How can anyone learn if they lack the skills of reflection and reasoning?

Each stage has its healthy and unhealthy expressions. What you focus on is the unhealthy expressions of that, and judge the entire stage by that. And so do fundamentalists looking at all other stages. From my point of view, it's all the pot calling the kettle black. Neither sees themselves doing the same thing those they are pointing a finger at.

From a psychological perspective any of the stages are healthy so long as they don't cause the person a problems, and offer them some uplifting aspect to life.

Do children have those same tools as adults and should be able to see the world as adults, when they are still in their teens?

The human brain doesn't reach it's full development until about 27. Some teenagers are exceptional. Many adults are pretty foolish.

Better stated is that not all people have access to these tool, or are able to utilize them even if they had access to them. Just being exposed to it, and even having the desire or motive to want to make use of them, means that they have developed the capacity to yet. It's a growth thing, not an availability thing, in other words.

If all children were taight logic and critical thinking skill, and how to follow evidence to sound conclusions, I think there would be fewer problems for society.

For instance, I have exposed you to the tools from postmodernity and integral, but that alone is not going to mean you get that and can reason from those modalities. Being able to demonstrate knowledge is much different than simply hearing about it. Take Creationists trying to make mythic stories scientific for example. They aren't actually thinking in science terms. They're imitating it only, and it shows they aren't at that level yet.

Well these tools seem more useful to those who want more religious experiences as well as reasoning ability, as I noted. This isn't anything I wasn't aware of alredy. I am plenty surrounded by religious opportunities but I have been there and done that.

 

[viole]

There's a reason for that, but they cannot understand it due to spiritual blindness. It's not necessarily their fault. God doesn't permit everyone to believe in him - yet. In the end, ALL will believe and follow Jesus.

What on earth is spiritual blindness?

Ciao

- viole

 

[Windwalker]

The phrase "Ultimate Reality" has no more facts related to it that the word "God".

Just think about what that term means. It's not "thing" separate from everything that exists. It's talking about what is considered to be the "big picture". The "big picture" is not an object like a solar flare. It's a view. And it certainly can be supported by facts, as any philosophical view would be.

But lets again not just leave me with making bald claims without support. I love going to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy as academic support for all of these things, which are of course being ignored by those who I have been debating with here, for reasons which seem obvious to me, yet disappointing nonetheless. Regardless of that, I'll share them anyway for other readers who are interested in deepening their understanding in pursuit of the rational.

Under the entry for the philosophical subject of God and Other Ultimates, we have this:

What it takes to be ultimate is to be the most fundamentally real, valuable or fulfilling among all that there is or could be. Historically, philosophy of religion in the West has taken God to be ultimate. Over the past century, the field has become increasingly aware that ultimacy is grasped under different concepts in the world’s religions, philosophies and quasi-religious philosophies—so not only as “God” but also as, e.g., “Brahman”, “the Dao”, and more. Moreover, people have thought to conceptualize each of these ultimates in numerous ways across cultures and times, so there are many models of Brahman, many models of God, many models of the Dao, and more; perhaps there is even a model of what is ultimate for each person who has thought hard about it. This entry presents a framework for understanding this vast landscape of models of God and other ultimates and then surveys some of its major sights. Familiarity with this landscape can clarify the long journey to deciding whether there is anything ultimate, among other benefits.​

So, yes, there are plenty of facts supporting it. People consider and talk about, have questions about, debate, have models about this very thing all the time throughout all cultures. It is a very human fact that humans have some view of absolute or ultimate reality - including you.

Everyone has some view or concept about ultimate reality. You for instance may see that the ultimate reality is strictly a physicalist, materialist reality. That would be ultimate reality to you, one that does not have any higher spiritual level to it, just atoms and dust, living for a time, but without any higher meaning. That's a view of ultimate reality, and as such it too is and always will be a matter of faith. Any view that casts its gaze upon the ultimate truth of existence, is a philosophy, and a matter of faith, for theist and atheist alike.

For any humans who wants to understand what is true about how things are these two ideas need to be set on a shelf until facts indicate they are true. The word "reality" is sufficient to represent what actually exists. "Ultimate Realty" is on par with Creationism.

Ridiculous. It is not at all comparable to Creationism. Read the article. I mean seriously, that is an irrational statement.

Sure, there is no doubt that a guy stoned is at a different level of consciousness than a stone sober person. I have no disputes with what experts describe as levels of consciousness. I have felt fervor and excitement like any other human, so know what that is like.

I'm sad. I'm sad that despite my sharing all of that, you didn't bother to read it. That or you did, couldn't understand it, and then just posted this as if if you think you did. You clearly did not understand it, or maybe even didn't bother to read it. These stages, or structures, are NOT at all related in any sense of the word to altered states of consciousness! They are permanent stage development structures, not bloody getting high, fervor moments, and the like.

Were I the teacher in the classroom, you'd get an F for that answer to the material you were responding to.

I have been so glucose depleted that my brain no longer functions accurately.

Great. What does that have to do with Gebser's structures of consciousness, pray tell?

Consciousness is directly tied to how the brain is functioning materially. Brain damage, mental illness, chemical imballances, all distort how the person perceives their environment and how they determine reality. There is a lot of woowoo stuff out there that is more speculative than descriptive, so I tend to be wary about these types of claims.

continued>>

*sigh*

 

[Windwalker]

Since, as you frame it, I am operating at a higher level than the fervent religious folk then it is their problem. Am I to lower my dialog to their level? No. These aren't children who lack life experience and brain development, these are adults who for one reason or another ended up believing irrational sets of ideas.

Before you chastised me for bring up my believing you were probably assuming that because they were adults, they shouldn't be at the mythic-literal stage.

Here's what I had originally said in post 713:

I think what you may struggle with here, is that one's biological age, is not an indication of their maturity and sophistication in certain areas. We are all children in our thinking, limited in what we are able to recognize or comprehend, not based upon our biological ages, but based upon our developmental stages in that particular area of life.​

​

To which you rebuffed me in post 767:

I never brought any of this up, you did. So your guess that I struggle with this is incorrect.​

​

No, my guess was 100% on the money. You just affirmed that above saying, "These aren't children who lack life experience and brain development, these are adults who for one reason or another ended up believing irrational sets of ideas."

You have not understood one thing I have posted.

We aren't debating children. I'm not sure why you keep mentioning them as if they represent what's going on in these debates.

I give up. I already know the reason you don't understand any of this. It's just the nature of these things. The context is outside your adapted framework you see reality through, and so the content is too foreign to be processed and grasped. It's not because you lack intelligence, which is what I have been arguing for as well in the case of mythic-literal believers operating within their given contexts.

But I do encourage you nonetheless to go back and spend some time on that material I shared. If you believe you are starting to understand it, then by all means reach back out to me. But for now, it's clear you're not following any of this. You're not following the most basic premises that have been explained in multiple ways by me and from multiple academic sources.

 

[F1fan]

Just think about what that term means. It's not "thing" separate from everything that exists. It's talking about what is considered to be the "big picture". The "big picture" is not an object like a solar flare. It's a view. And it certainly can be supported by facts, as any philosophical view would be.

But lets again not just leave me with making bald claims without support. I love going to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy as academic support for all of these things, which are of course being ignored by those who I have been debating with here, for reasons which seem obvious to me, yet disappointing nonetheless. Regardless of that, I'll share them anyway for other readers who are interested in deepening their understanding in pursuit of the rational.

Under the entry for the philosophical subject of God and Other Ultimates, we have this:

What it takes to be ultimate is to be the most fundamentally real, valuable or fulfilling among all that there is or could be. Historically, philosophy of religion in the West has taken God to be ultimate. Over the past century, the field has become increasingly aware that ultimacy is grasped under different concepts in the world’s religions, philosophies and quasi-religious philosophies—so not only as “God” but also as, e.g., “Brahman”, “the Dao”, and more. Moreover, people have thought to conceptualize each of these ultimates in numerous ways across cultures and times, so there are many models of Brahman, many models of God, many models of the Dao, and more; perhaps there is even a model of what is ultimate for each person who has thought hard about it. This entry presents a framework for understanding this vast landscape of models of God and other ultimates and then surveys some of its major sights. Familiarity with this landscape can clarify the long journey to deciding whether there is anything ultimate, among other benefits.​

So, yes, there are plenty of facts supporting it.

The only facts are that these are ideas. That these ideas are pondered by humans. That some humans think these ideas are true, or even absolute. But there are no facts that thee ideas are true in reality. That's a problem. The dilemma with philosohy is no need for there to be any tests in reality. It is all subject to human imagination, value judgment, meaning assignment, etc. That's fine as long as the person understands what thee ideas are, and what they are not.

Thus far what you describe as Ultimate Reality doesn't help anyone design an better engine, or create better parts for racing bikes, or cures for disease. It appears to be all about how a mind has meaning it values for itself.

People consider and talk about, have questions about, debate, have models about this very thing all the time throughout all cultures. It is a very human fact that humans have some view of absolute or ultimate reality - including you.

I will say not all do, as these are complex ideas and require a certain leve of intelligence to ponder and reason through the claims and alternatives. I've met people whose mental capacity is such that they never pondered any such thing. So it is a sort of privilege that some humans can ponder.

As for me, as a thinker who has had my time reading theology and philosophy it's a bit ironic that the more I read the more I realized how arbitrary and self-serving much of it is. It is amazing how many different views of life that could be conjured and written down. I've heard alot about gods and other ideas of what you call Ultimate Realty, and they aren't very ultimate in reality, only in human minds that are prone to errors of judgment, and other flaws. To my mind THAT is the big picture: how our minds are greedy for some godlike truth, and we employ self-deception to hide the motive. Of course we think we have discovered an Ultimate Reality, we think ourselves as a sort of god in it. What I have learned is how foolish this is. I think we have to be much more humble about what we are as a species and not get too whipved up in ideas that fluff up our image on the planet and in the universe. We are apes that can think in abstractions.

Everyone has some view or concept about ultimate reality. You for instance may see that the ultimate reality is strictly a physicalist, materialist reality. That would be ultimate reality to you, one that does not have any higher spiritual level to it, just atoms and dust, living for a time, but without any higher meaning. That's a view of ultimate reality, and as such it too is and always will be a matter of faith. Any view that casts its gaze upon the ultimate truth of existence, is a philosophy, and a matter of faith, for theist and atheist alike.

Don't you find it contradictory that you describe "Ultimate Reality" as subject to human opinion? I do. Basic, every day, run of the mill reality isn't. Facts are what they, and how things work is how it is. A blooming flower or a sunset might make us feel a certain way, but objectively these are just nature doing its thing, and we are observers trying to find a bigger significance for ourselves.

My mind is freer to just acknowledge what can be verified as existing instead of pondering this and that, and deciding one thing or another is real despite the lack of evidence. I can see a sunset and find it beautiful, but I have the wisdom to not think it indicates a God that is trying to reach me.

Ridiculous. It is not at all comparable to Creationism. Read the article. I mean seriously, that is an irrational statement.

I read the bit you included, and do you see what it says?

"What it takes to be ultimate is to be the most fundamentally real, valuable or fulfilling among all that there is or could be"​

​

"This entry presents a framework for understanding this vast landscape of models of God and other ultimates and then surveys some of its major sights. Familiarity with this landscape can clarify the long journey to deciding whether there is anything ultimate, among other benefits."​

The first sentence can apply to a hamburger, right? It's real. It's valuable. It's fulfilling. Or it can apply to what a person thinks God is. See how murky it is? No test in reality, it is at the whim of the person, just like creationism.

The second sentence points to understanding, but not facts. It refers to models and abstractions, so not really reality objectively. Then it says a person can decide whether there is anything ultimate. Really? Again, human judgment is faulty and if it is up to us to decide, then how is it actually Ultimate? It could be total fantasy as creationists believe in. There is a sort of irony for intelligent peeople to create complex frameworks in their minds that they then consider reality, or ultimate. Do they ever stop to consider why they are motivated to do this? Why can't these intelligent minds feel safe and satisfied without having a complex framework they believe in?

I'm sad. I'm sad that despite my sharing all of that, you didn't bother to read it. That or you did, couldn't understand it, and then just posted this as if if you think you did. You clearly did not understand it, or maybe even didn't bother to read it. These stages, or structures, are NOT at all related in any sense of the word to altered states of consciousness! They are permanent stage development structures, not bloody getting high, fervor moments, and the like.

Wrong on both counts. Why are you assuming that that if I don't value what you posted that I don't understand it? It's not complicated.

Don't you understand that some folks can understand it but it's just not valuable to them? If anyone is lacking understanding it's you. It's apparent that these ideas mean a lot to you, but that you assign value to them doesn't mean that is the only option for others.

Were I the teacher in the classroom, you'd get an F for that answer to the material you were responding to.

You would fit in well with the Taliban.

 

[F1fan]

Before you chastised me for bring up my believing you were probably assuming that because they were adults, they shouldn't be at the mythic-literal stage.

Here's what I had originally said in post 713:

I think what you may struggle with here, is that one's biological age, is not an indication of their maturity and sophistication in certain areas. We are all children in our thinking, limited in what we are able to recognize or comprehend, not based upon our biological ages, but based upon our developmental stages in that particular area of life.​

​

To which you rebuffed me in post 767:

I never brought any of this up, you did. So your guess that I struggle with this is incorrect.​

​

No, my guess was 100% on the money. You just affirmed that above saying, "These aren't children who lack life experience and brain development, these are adults who for one reason or another ended up believing irrational sets of ideas."

You have not understood one thing I have posted.

None of your thinking is accurate. I'm not sure why this petty issue is relevant.

You aren't that complicated. I think you want others to agree with you. It's not your fault, you are arguing for ideas that are subjective and optional. They aren't going to appeal to everyone. And it is common to accuse others in these discussions of "not getting it".

I give up. I already know the reason you don't understand any of this. It's just the nature of these things. The context is outside your adapted framework you see reality through, and so the content is too foreign to be processed and grasped. It's not because you lack intelligence, which is what I have been arguing for as well in the case of mythic-literal believers operating within their given contexts.

You sound like your feelings are hurt. Has it occurred to you I just don't find the ideas valuable? Can you understand that all people aren't like you?

But I do encourage you nonetheless to go back and spend some time on that material I shared. If you believe you are starting to understand it, then by all means reach back out to me. But for now, it's clear you're not following any of this. You're not following the most basic premises that have been explained in multiple ways by me and from multiple academic sources.

You sound like those self-help gurus who push people to pay the $600 for the weekend seminar, because if you don't you will never reach your potential without it.

 

[Windwalker]

You would fit in well with the Taliban.

Is this what you say to your teachers when you failed their course materials in school? A comment like this says everything we need to understand.

You have not once demonstrated you understand what is being presented, and your claims that you do fall flat on their face. Your responses clearly demonstrate otherwise. I see no further benefit to myself or to you to continue. This isn't material you're ready for.

 

[F1fan]

Is this what you said to your teachers when you failed the course materials in school?

No, it's what I wrote to you because I won't agree with your way of valuing the idea of "Ultimate Reality". You felt a need to insult me, albeit subtly.

A comment like this says everything we need to understand. You have not demonstrated you understand what is being presented. I see no further need to continue.

And your comment tells us you resist reflecting on your own actions and feelings. I think you want to see yourself a certain way, and it might not be completely true.

 

[Windwalker]

No, it's what I wrote to you because I won't agree with your way of valuing the idea of "Ultimate Reality". You felt a need to insult me, albeit subtly.

I'm not talking about our discussion about ultimate reality. I'm talking about everything else. I shared about structures of consciousness, and you reply talking about getting high and fervor states? Clearly, you don't understand what is being talked about, even having the materials right there for you to read in short excerpts.

And your trying to say it's because you won't agree with me is baseless. If you showed you understood what I was talking about, and make direct disagreements to those points, that I would welcome. But this is nothing more than me trying to get you to understand what I'm talking about to even begin to discuss it with me.

As I said, if you can demonstrate you understand the material, and then from that understanding offer disagreements, I would be thrilled! But you aren't, and my simply trying to educated you when you don't bother to read the material, or if you do, simply admit you don't understand it and ask me questions to clarify it, isn't going to fly any more for me. It's wasted energy on my part. You simply don't get what is being talked about.

 

[LuisDantas]

What on earth is spiritual blindness?

Ciao

- viole

Apparently, given the post you are asking about, it is something that strongly correlates with atheism.

In most situations I would instead consider it an alternate name for "lack of religious wisdom", though. Which is an entirely different thing.