Religion v's Spirituality

[charles brough]

Sometimes, but not always, for both of those points.

I was looking at your Icon and wondering what "bro" was!:ignore:

 

[idav]

Clearly, spirituality appeals to the individual's core narcissism in a way that religion, with its emphasis on all that God and dogma stuff, simply can't.

-Nato

That is it right there. Even when someone is in a religion they can't possibly agree on what to think about every detail. That certainly doesn't stop some devout religious people from trying to adhere to strict dogmas.

 

[ManTimeForgot]

Clearly, spirituality appeals to the individual's core narcissism in a way that religion, with its emphasis on all that God and dogma stuff, simply can't.

-Nato

I think you need to be careful lest you end up in a situation wherein the pot ends up calling the kettle black.

There is nothing wrong with speculation and subjective investigation into the deeper mysteries of life, the universe, and reality. To suggest otherwise is blatant hypocrisy.


And if you don't watch yourself you will end up like many a scientist who ends up transforming their cosmology into their own personal brand of religion. There is currently a scientist who found that if you use a 248 member Lie Group (creates a wicked looking pattern that apparently you can't appreciate fully with a 3 dimensional mind) that the standard model of particles will map onto this design. In his opinion: "Simplicity of this sort shouldn't be burdened by tacking on a creator being more complex than this..."

You can end up making some very unnatural assumptions in defense of your own pet theory of cosmology if you don't watch out. I have never seen nor heard of anything that I would consider "elegant" in its simplicity with more than maybe a handful of facets. 248 goes well into the realm of... are you sure that those extra distinctions are necessary?

Scientists presuppose the existence of forces and materials that they have precisely zero experimental evidence of their existence. We look at gravity's influence on the way we think that the universe is expanding and suppose that dark matter must be there even though we have never found any dark matter nor even know what it would look like if we did find it (it isn't on the Periodic table that is for sure). We look at the amount of energy herent to the expansion of the universe and see that it is way more powerful than it "should be" and suppose that dark energy must be doing it (mind you dark energy must not radiate in any way that we can detect).


Organized religion may well have run its natural course in human social evolution, but I am firmly convinced it is rank hubris to suppose that we have a good handle on how the universe let alone reality actually works...

MTF

 

[E. Nato Difficile]

There is nothing wrong with speculation and subjective investigation into the deeper mysteries of life, the universe, and reality. To suggest otherwise is blatant hypocrisy.

I never suggested otherwise. But how much speculation is warranted? Are the "deeper mysteries" of life inaccessible to conventional methods of investigation, or does empirical evidential inquiry just not tell you what you want to hear?

And if you don't watch yourself you will end up like many a scientist who ends up transforming their cosmology into their own personal brand of religion.

Um, yeah, I'll be careful. I promise.

Scientists presuppose the existence of forces and materials that they have precisely zero experimental evidence of their existence.

Well, the reason they "presuppose" this is because they're trying to explain experimental results. It's not because there's nothing but wishful thinking to indicate the existence of a phenomenon, as is the case for God or the paranormal or whatever else.

-Nato

 

[charles brough]

Fantastic icon you have! Did you put it together yourself or find it somewhere? Is that you in "Hell? " Or do you just feel like you are there? :fork:

 

[charles brough]

I never suggested otherwise. But how much speculation is warranted? Are the "deeper mysteries" of life inaccessible to conventional methods of investigation, or does empirical evidential inquiry just not tell you what you want to hear?

Um, yeah, I'll be careful. I promise.

Well, the reason they "presuppose" this is because they're trying to explain experimental results. It's not because there's nothing but wishful thinking to indicate the existence of a phenomenon, as is the case for God or the paranormal or whatever else.

-Nato

very good! :clap

 

[charles brough]

That is it right there. Even when someone is in a religion they can't possibly agree on what to think about every detail. That certainly doesn't stop some devout religious people from trying to adhere to strict dogmas.

The dogmas, no matter how obsolete, still serve a unifying purpose. That is the only reason the old and obsolete religions still survive. Being small group primates, . we have to have a cohesive closed-way of thinking ideology to unite people.

The problem is that the world's present list of them are so old and outgrown that they have divided into a mass of religious, political, racial and even secular cults. Pantheism is one---even though one of the more modern ones.

When we get so divided we can no longer function at all, we will by then have moved on to a new and more advanced ideology. That happened will happen as we watch the gradual fall of our "Global Economy" (our empire). It is our "empire" because we set it up to tax in the form of borrowing trade-imbalance money that we pay back in depreciated dollars.

 

[E. Nato Difficile]

The dogmas, no matter how obsolete, still serve a unifying purpose. That is the only reason the old and obsolete religions still survive.

The religions don't have to serve a purpose to society to survive. As self-perpetuating social constructs, they just have to get people to toe the line: affirm belief in the dogmas, pray at the right times, avoid proscribed food, etc.

These constructs aren't here for the good of the society or the believer. They're here for self-perpetuation.

-Nato

 

[charles brough]

The religions don't have to serve a purpose to society to survive. As self-perpetuating social constructs, they just have to get people to toe the line: affirm belief in the dogmas, pray at the right times, avoid proscribed food, etc.

These constructs aren't here for the good of the society or the believer. They're here for self-perpetuation.

-Nato

You just use the vague term "social constructs" for what everyone else calls "religions" (Islam, the Christian West and Hindu India) or "secular ideologies" (like our Constitutional-based secular Humanism and East Asian Marxism). They are all simply world-view and way-of-thinking systems with their own culture (and cults) and which serve to unite people into larger entities (such as nations). They are the only thing capable of preventing us from reverting back to small hunting-gathering size groups. We are evolved biological/genetically small group primates and that won't change.

The social theory consensus agrees on hardly anything other than that social evolution theory is a threat to both Western secular and old religious ideology. Like all living matter, such ideological systems and their societies (or "social organisms") experience a natural selection competition between them. They also grow old and begin to die as they are being replaced by new and more advanced ones.

 

[E. Nato Difficile]

Charles,

Thank you for the response.

I'm not saying we shouldn't have social constructs to unite us, whether they're religious or secular ideologies. I'm just pointing out that these ideologies have a way of developing into systems that operate for their own perpetuation rather than the good of individuals or society. Any ideology that punishes rational scrutiny, or discourages it through creating linguistic barriers to understanding its core beliefs, deserves our suspicion.

-Nato

 

[ManTimeForgot]

He's right though. Religions would not have developed as institutions if they were not more beneficial at the time of development than detrimental. It is possible (and I agree with you if this is what you suggest) that they no longer possess sufficient benefit to the modern world to cover their detriment.

Institutions are a product of derivation and the environmental factors that gave way to old world religion are in large part no longer present or no longer as important. So it stands to reason that organized religions as they were would no longer be as useful. But just because something is a bad fit doesn't mean you can just willy nilly get rid of it. If you have nothing to replace something with, then you can't remove it.


Gentlemen, it is all and good to suggest that at some point an ideology (of some sort) will happen that will allow people to be unified without being a trap for the masses. But you would be remiss in that you are forgetting that half of the world has an IQ of 100 or less. The vast majority of people are not capable of second order abstractions (they can figure out what they want, but trying to envision what other people want is beyond them).


Tenets found in some of the more esoteric disciplines are for the good. Zen Buddhism is one of the few experimentally verified methods for increasing one's IQ (the study and application of human cognitive biases: vis-a-vis Rationality being the only other I am aware of at this time). But how those two methods accomplish this increase is likely not the same, yes? So should we not encourage both possibilities?


We are, despite whatever claims are made by renown scientists, still fumbling around in the dark. Cosmic ants contemplating scent trails... It is right to point out that any ideology which inhibits scrutiny should itself be scrutinized heavily. But on the flip side of things any ideology which prevents excessive attachment to one particular idea is also for the good. Rational biases of all types should be stamped out, not just the ones we have conveniently taken as our own pet projects.

While it is certainly the case that not everyone is up to the challenge of adhering to a Bayesian Ideal, that does not mean that we should not strive to have humanity move towards that ideal. And it would be remiss of anyone proposing "human optimization" to ignore the various psychological and physiological benefits inherent to the various religious disciplines (being able to alter your brain waves so that you are far more aware of and receptive to data, to feel compassion for everyone, to be able to gain control over autonomic functions...).


I will be the first to admit that organized religions have to go (Buddhists flat say that to become attached to an ideal including Buddhist ones is to betray the Buddha), but that is not the same thing as saying that people's pet theories or imaginative exploration should be discouraged so that we can all embrace the Scientific Truth Handed Down By Our Scientific Masters.

MTF