Politically charged Quote of the Day (and ... The Meaning of Life)

[innerSpaceman]

^ editor's note: just changed "of" to "or." I mostly leave NA's charming typo style alone, but correct something once in a while to preserve her meaning ... especially when her meaning is so perceptive.

[Gemini Cricket]

troublemaker's note: For fun, I just changed "I" to "robot pirates" in iSm's post.

Originally Posted by innerSpaceman

But are your own personal experiences any more of a leap of faith than if you had no such experiences?

Like Kevy, robot pirates have been into Wicca, as it is a body of beliefs and expressions that tapped into energies robot pirates have most definitely experienced. Yet, robot pirates cannot "prove" or demonstrate in any way that those experiences were not themselves delusional.

Robot pirates know they have not been. But is the faith robot pirates have in spiritual energy any more grounded in truth if it's based on my personal experience rather than being based on an idea robot pirates drew out of a hat?

Why did I do that? Because maybe life isn't all about taking everything so seriously. And because it's funny.

[Alex]

Originally Posted by innerSpaceman

But is the faith I have in spiritual energy any more grounded in truth if it's based on my personal experience rather than being based on an idea I drew out of a hat?

From my point of view, no it's not. But from your point of view yes it is, since you probably wouldn't have your faith if you hadn't had what you personally found to be evidence providing experience. Even if it is evidence that, by definition, can not be shared in any way.

But as I've said, as long as people's believes don't intrude on the experienced world then I really don't care what people believe. The only reason I started this tangent is because of Kevy's comment that we should open ourselves up to faith and I'm really curious how one does that without letting in every faith-based idea that exists. It seems the answer is to first decide what you want you're going to believe and then open yourself up to believing that.

For things that stay out of the real world and are inherently untestable ("I believe that there is an afterlife," "I believe that there was a creator who created the big bang and then let it all go from there according to plan," "I believe in reincarnation," "I believe that phantasms from an alternate dimension have created a wormhole that is locked to my brainwaves and they observe everything I do") then I am open to people believing whatever they want unmolested by my debating. Though from my perspective I don't see why what you've chosen to believe about the spiritually connected nature of nature is any less unlikely than what the Scientologists have chosen to believe about the origins of spiritual man.

It is just when the religious "beliefs" intrude into the real world that I start to get my back up. If you belief in the evocative power of prayer, that is a testable hypothesis. Same as if you believe that drawing certain images on the floor and then saying certain words in order will cause fireballs to shoot from your fingertips. If you believe that ancient spirits are telling you truths about the future. And so on. Then I start to wonder if "faith" in the face of evidence isn't just self-delusion. Whereas I tend to think of faith in the absence of any evidence is just wishful thinking.

[wendybeth]

Do you believe in robot pirates?

[Alex]

Of course I do. I've seen them myself on maybe 10% of my trips to Disneyland. I've also seen video evidence of their construction.

[Not Afraid]

I believe in Peanut Butter.

[Gemini Cricket]

Do you believe in life after love?

[innerSpaceman]

Originally Posted by Alex Stroup

...Kevy's comment that we should open ourselves up to faith and I'm really curious how one does that without letting in every faith-based idea that exists. It seems the answer is to first decide what you want you're going to believe and then open yourself up to believing that.

I don't think it's so much first deciding what you are going to believe rather than first deciding what you are not going to outright deny. I think that's an important distinction that is more than semantical.

If, for example, you are an atheist ... but decide to not outright deny the existence of a "higher power" or "god," you may - or may not - over the course of months or years have a series of experiences which leave you in doubt of your atheistic stance. If, however, you steadfastly deny the existence of a higher power and defend your atheism staunchly by viewing all experiences through an atheistically-filtered perception, you will almost certainly not have any experiences which comflict with your comfortably atheistic stance.


I can't speak for Kevy, but that's what I think he meant by opening yourself up. You do not need to decide to affirmatively believe in ghosts, but you must be willing to consider the idea if you become haunted by dead people.

[Alex]

I'm still not seeing a non-semantical difference. Because it seems awfully coincidental that the spirituality you "experienced" matched well with what you were already open to. It's not like you were feeling the world was a connected place but ended up with evidence of a wrathful monotheistic deity determined to keep mankind crushed beneath his bootheel.

But then again, it is hard for me to talk since I've never experienced anything that seemed the slightest bit spiritual or religious or supernatural. If such exist, they apparently have no interest in me. The Fran Lebowitz quote I mentioned earlier (or in another thread) was about how for her "spirituality" just confused her. It is a concept with zero meaning to her. Same for me. I don't deny the existence of a higher power, I've just never seen any reason to suppose one exists.

But I'm still not clear on how you decide which articles of faith are serious and which are simply silly and signs of a delusional mind. Surely you don't believe all things "taken on faith" by all the people of the world are equally valid simply because the people claim to have experienced them in some way?

[innerSpaceman]

Originally Posted by Alex Stroup

it is hard for me to talk since I've never experienced anything that seemed the slightest bit spiritual or religious or supernatural. If such exist, they apparently have no interest in me.

Ah, but is that simply the result of the supernatural vicious circle? Do ghosts leave you a wide berth only because you have no interest in them, while they feel affinity with, and gravite to, people who hold seances?

I don't think you necessarily need to have personal experiences to convince you of faith-based ideas. Outright denial, however, can "push" such things away from your experience, as can plain old disinterest. But it needn't actually "happen" to you.


Example 1 - Ghosts: At one time, I did not particularly believe in ghosts. I thought it was an absurdly silly concept. I still do. Yet, I was not in such steadfast refusal about it that I bent over backwards to avoid ghostly supernaturalisms. Then I lived for a while in a haunted house. Ghosts exist. Either that, or something exists that humans have, throughout history, interpreted (reasonably so, imo) as the spirits of dead people.

If I had been steadfast in my refusal to believe in ghosts, I could have twistedly rationalized my personal haunting experiences to be caused by sunspots. But since I remained open to it ... I more rationally interpreted them to be what people call "ghosts." And have acknowledged that all rational signs pointed to the improbability of dead-people-spirits, absurdly silly as that may be.


Example 2 - Space Aliens: I have pretty much never believed in UFOs or little green men. I think it is an absurdly silly concept. And I have never personally experienced anything to sway me otherwise. Yet, a decent amount of personal research on the subject has convinced me that something legitimately weird is going on vis-a-vis the subject of space aliens, and that mass delusions are not the simple answer. Rather there is something going on that people, reasonably imo, are interpreting as "space aliens."



These are two supernaturalistic belief systems I now buy into; one through personal experience, and one through mere information. In both cases, I let whatever happens in my life determine which stuff I will be open to, and thus may or may not come to believe in or ascribe to. For all I know, stygmata may be a legitimate phenonmen ... but nothing has happened in my life to bring it to my attention. I remain skeptical, but not closed-minded, about it ... and about pretty much all outlandish or supernatural phenomena.

But I don't drive such phenomena away by refusing it or ignoring it.