Can an atheist experience 'the spiritual'.

[Vraith]

So you could be wrong about the specific god, or about whether a god is involved at all, and still experience awe.

That would be my answer as well.
All the problems come cuz they're ineffable, but folk always try to make them effable, and therefore eff them up.
[[ok, maybe not ALL the problems]]

Though I think the spiritual is related to awe...but----?--- awe+ ?...
Wider? More inclusive? More inputs? More connections? More immersion? Or awareness?
Whatever, but something. Maybe it's as simple as awe is simple, spiritual is complex awe.


[[I also think spiritual experiences/states are pretty easy---compared to many other less valuable things we spend a lot more time, work, and effort on---to achieve. We just don't value them enough, as a whole, to bother/spend the time.]]

[peter]

re peter: I hope you don't think I was making a spurious retreat. I was noting the fact that such things exist and have been used...and that the question in the thread title indicates that, at some level, such have had some influence. Simply recognizing one piece of ground/fundamental underneath the question.
That relates directly to the reverse I asked above: if one believes in one, and only one, particular god---and one is wrong---can one [and/or has one ever] experience(d) "the spiritual?'[/color]

Absolutly not V. And what you say is entierly fair (and it had in fact already occured to me). I may well be 'hoisted on my own patard' here [for badly framing my initial question], but of believing that peoples moral worth is lesser or greater by virtue of the beliefs they do or don't have re the existance of God is at least one mistake I have not made .

The reality is that after the lion's share of a life lived and no little time spent [wasted?] considering my belief or otherwise, I am not one jot closer to understanding even where my own position lies, let alone getting on to considering the 'rights and wrongs' of it. Re the initial question, my own inclination would be that both believers and unbelievers are equally capable of experiencing the 'trancendental' in exactly the same way, but just differ in their post-experience interpretation of it.

In the face of my own inability to sort the wheat from the chaff on these questions, and in the spirit of maintaining balance in all things I have at last reached a compromise that seems to work for me; I'm entierly religious from the waist up!

[peter]

24 hours have brought a sort of 'clarity' to my dilema in that I begin to see that the problem lies with the conflicting beliefs of my head and my heart. My head [where I would like rationality to rule] says no - but my heart says yes.

Now I set great store by rationallity [Sherlock Holmes is on of my all time favorite literary charachters fer' Gods sake] and so the leanings of my heart should on the face of it be set aside in favour of the rational, but I remember the following [was it from the teachings of Don Juan], that in life it is fairly easy to decide on the paths you follow and those you abandon. You simply look at your path and ask if it has a heart, and if the answer is "no", you abandon it. It seemed like good advice to me [for I seemed to understand what was meant by 'a path with a heart'] and so, should I now sacrifice it on the alter of my beloved 'rationality'? I suspect this forms the root of my dilema and I doubt I shall ever solve it.

[Fist and Faith]

peter,

We're in entirely different places. As Syl was just saying, I know myself. I know what it all means to me. I don't have doubts. I'm not confused by anything we talk about in these threads.

I did do a whole lot of searching, talking, reading. For a few decades. But not because I felt what your heart is telling you. I was able to find the answers I've found because my heart was not telling me what yours is. Dondarion's advice to "Try him out and give him a chance, and see where that prayer you offer up lands." is literally a preposterous suggestion. I don't mean that in the casual negative sense. I mean there's not a cell in my body that can even contemplate the idea seriously. The fact that he suggested it to me shows how very much he does not understand me. Which is only to be expected. We've known each other for a couple months through a couple dozen posts? Of course we don't know each other.

However...

It might not be a bad idea for you. You've spent decades considering all this, with what I see as a logical, reasonable mind. It even seems to me that you've wanted to find satisfaction in answers that don't have anything to do with any kind of g/God, supernatural, what have you. You understand the questions, and, I think, understand the answers folks like me live our lives by.

But you can't shake what's in your heart.

If I've read all that right, my advice is for you to take Dondarion's advice. Take that leap of faith. Open your heart. Whatever it is those religious wackos say. *supressed laughter* I have no idea how much angst this causes you, but you're obviously not happy with what you have so far. Will you make yourself crazy by continuing as you've been? If it's not really a big deal, then don't bother. But you're posting about your dilemma, so maybe it is a big deal. So follow your heart. I do not believe for a second that the rationality you obviously love will suffer for it. You're not going to find yourself unable to resist the preachings of a six-thousand year old Earth. You're not suddenly going to believe the idiotic version of evolution that's in the Watchtower pamphlets. If you look for the divine, you will find a faith that doesn't attack your scientific side. Despite what others might tell you, such things exist. There is no conflict between the general fields of religion and science. It's usually just some people trying to use one against the other. Usually with a poor understanding of the other side. And yes, there are certainly some specific religions that preach things that are simply and verifiably false. But it need not be. Don't be afraid of trying. Your heart and your head can live together in peace.

[Avatar]

Damn good post Fist. And yes, it's perfectly possible to have a faith which does not negate (or even contradict) science. Look at Xar. Or you could if he was ever around...

--A

[peter]

Thanks Guys [and Fist especially for what was indeed a fine post indeed]. Firstly I must be absolutely honest and say these are not questions about which I 'tear my hair and gnash my teeth' too much, so it's unlikely I would ever 'join' a traditional religious group such as a Church or whatever. But that said I think there is much in your advice Fist in respect of at least 'opening ones heart' to the possibility of the ineffable [nb I use the word 'heart' both in this and the above post to refer to that 'mystical, non-rational side of the mind that co-exists [sometimes peacefully, sometimes not] with the rational part.] For me, this 'dualism' has always been one sided and leant heavily toward the rational, and it has always been a source of mild amusement that I posess this anti-rational throwback that sticks like chewing-gum to the shoe of my enlightenment.

But yes, pehaps it may indeed be the time to give it at least more space to reveal itself; I will give the matter less thought .

[Fist and Faith]

I will give the matter less thought .

[Dondarion]

Fist and Faith wrote:

Dondarion's advice to "Try him out and give him a chance, and see where that prayer you offer up lands." is literally a preposterous suggestion. I don't mean that in the casual negative sense. I mean there's not a cell in my body that can even contemplate the idea seriously. The fact that he suggested it to me shows how very much he does not understand me. Which is only to be expected. We've known each other for a couple months through a couple dozen posts? Of course we don't know each other.

...

But you can't shake what's in your heart.

If I've read all that right, my advice is for you to take Dondarion's advice. Take that leap of faith. Open your heart. Whatever it is those religious wackos say. *supressed laughter* I have no idea how much angst this causes you, but you're obviously not happy with what you have so far. Will you make yourself crazy by continuing as you've been? If it's not really a big deal, then don't bother. But you're posting about your dilemma, so maybe it is a big deal. So follow your heart. I do not believe for a second that the rationality you obviously love will suffer for it. You're not going to find yourself unable to resist the preachings of a six-thousand year old Earth. You're not suddenly going to believe the idiotic version of evolution that's in the Watchtower pamphlets. If you look for the divine, you will find a faith that doesn't attack your scientific side. Despite what others might tell you, such things exist. There is no conflict between the general fields of religion and science. It's usually just some people trying to use one against the other. Usually with a poor understanding of the other side. And yes, there are certainly some specific religions that preach things that are simply and verifiably false. But it need not be. Don't be afraid of trying. Your heart and your head can live together in peace.

*Dondarion reads above while jaw slowly drops*. I guess I truly don't understand you, Fist, and that is indeed to be expected, especially when such wonderful advice is given by a non-believer. I am greatly touched. And, perhaps my suggestion was not so "preposterous", because even you offering this advice for the concern and well being of one of your fellow brethren has to go at least some way toward perhaps considering it for yourself (maybe even an inkling? maybe even subliminally speaking? )

Peter wrote:

But yes, pehaps it may indeed be the time to give it at least more space to reveal itself; I will give the matter less thought .

What a beautiful way to put that. Mind if I steal it from time to time? I think we all need to give things a little less thought now and again. Open our eyes and our hearts, not always just our minds. God dwells in all these things, equally, if we choose to look in those places. He wants to write his ways on our hearts, because that's what matters most. Being rational is certainly part of it, but we can't reason God's ways, I just don't think we're "wired" for that, and he's not limited to being understood in that way. And I know that's not a good enough answer for the case for God in the reasoned out sense, but I think there is so much there in so many stories and revelations and miracles, etc. (and certainly a considerable amount by way of reason as well), that it is certainly rational to make that "leap of faith" and "act as if", and see what happens. The fact that you may come to this choice after having questioned and reasoned all these years, imho, makes it even more wonderful, because yours will be a responsible journey, an adult journey, and you will do it justice.

[Dondarion]

Oh, and trust me, others will notice. Believers will take notice, and will learn from you by your simply being there, and it will strengthen them, give them renewed energy and hope, and you will see how the fueling and refueling of people truly can work for good, and then it comes back to you, and you are grateful. And that's the kind of gratefulness that trusting in faith brings. But you can't see it until you open the door and go inside.

[Avatar]

I guess I truly don't understand you, Fist, and that is indeed to be expected, especially when such wonderful advice is given by a non-believer. I am greatly touched.

It's easy to forget the other half of his username.

...has to go at least some way toward perhaps considering it for yourself...

This one I feel confident in answering for him...nope.

--A

[peter]

Dare I say it - Amen to that!

[Fist and Faith]

[Dondarion]

Avatar wrote:

It's easy to forget the other half of his username

Now why didn't I put that one together for myself? I am going to go with the idea that just by having the other half in there, there is at least a struggle going on between the "Fist" and the "Faith". Hey, the name "Israelites" means "those who wrestle with God", and I think we would agree they had some degree of faith, no?

[Zarathustra]

Damn good post Fist. And yes, it's perfectly possible to have a faith which does not negate (or even contradict) science. Look at Xar. Or you could if he was ever around...

--A

I don't see how it's possible for the two not to contradict. It's like saying you can believe in both magic and science. Science depends upon naturalism, the idea that everything in the universe can be explained with natural mechanisms/causes. If there is some part of reality that can't be explained naturally, then the universe itself isn't natural, and science is entirely the wrong thing to use to explain it. But we know this is wrong, because natural explanations work too well to be merely a coincidence. Their explanatory power comes from their reach into reality. There should be no reason for this if the universe weren't natural.

To suppose that there is another world or "layer" to reality which can't be explained naturally and for which there is no evidence contradicts both the methodology of science and the epistemology of science. How can such a supposition be reconciled with science, if it contradicts it in the most fundamental ways?

[Fist and Faith]

You needn't be concerned, Z. Those who believe will not be able to change the properties of the universe. They will not build a FTL engine that is powered by prayer, thus throwing our understanding of things into chaos. Those who believe the Earth is six thousand years old have no effect on radiometric dating. And those who believe engines can run on prayer, and that the Earth is six thousand years old, are obviously not the people who would be sending us to the stars, inventing an inexhaustible power source, or developing AI anyway. They are not a loss to science.

OTOH, those whose belief does not insist that the verifiable facts of the universe are false can and have advanced our knowledge, and will likely continue to do so.

[Dondarion]

Z wrote:

I don't see how it's possible for the two not to contradict. It's like saying you can believe in both magic and science. Science depends upon naturalism, the idea that everything in the universe can be explained with natural mechanisms/causes. If there is some part of reality that can't be explained naturally, then the universe itself isn't natural, and science is entirely the wrong thing to use to explain it. But we know this is wrong, because natural explanations work too well to be merely a coincidence. Their explanatory power comes from their reach into reality. There should be no reason for this if the universe weren't natural.

To suppose that there is another world or "layer" to reality which can't be explained naturally and for which there is no evidence contradicts both the methodology of science and the epistemology of science. How can such a supposition be reconciled with science, if it contradicts it in the most fundamental ways?

To have faith does not mean it must negate science and the natural explanation of things. There MUST be an explanation of some kind, it's just that we can't explain it. Faith is to believe what cannot be seen and explained by nature, not to deny an explanation exists. And to coin the simile as "magic and science" is misplaced to put it mildly. There is no hocus-pocus about matters of faith.

Fist and Faith wrote:

You needn't be concerned, Z. Those who believe will not be able to change the properties of the universe....And anyway they are not a loss to science.

As I'm sure all are aware, the person who proposed the Big Bang Theory (not the comedy show, the real thing), Georges Lemaitre, was a physicist and a catholic priest. He quite obviously would not say the universe is 6,000 years old. News flash....there are more of us out there like him. That stereotype is dead, and yes, science brought that about. But it does not negate faith.

Fist and Faith wrote:

OTOH, those whose belief does not insist that the verifiable facts of the universe are false can and have advanced our knowledge, and will likely continue to do so.

This statement would cover those like Lemaitre directly, of course.

[Avatar]

As I'm sure all are aware, the person who proposed the Big Bang Theory (not the comedy show, the real thing), Georges Lemaitre, was a physicist and a catholic priest.

Excellent point. I was actually just reading something that mentioned Lemaitre the other day in fact.

It's not such a big step to substitute "God" for a first cause from which all physical principles sprung in order to have a faith which does not preclude science or rationality.

I don't share that faith of course, but whether or not the laws of physics were "made" by "God" is practically irrelevant I think. "Magic" is just another way of saying "we don't understand how this works yet."

--A

[peter]

But right or wrong, for good and/or for bad, faith, belief, spirituality, the 'other side' of what it means or can mean to be human - these things have contributed massively and positvely in human history. We can't surely all of a sudden just deny this, sweep it away as if it never were. We have at the very least a debt of recognition to that side of our charachter, which has led us to the very place we are at now. It made us what we are. It has been a force for good in the story of human development that outweighs all the terrible crimes perpetrated in it's name.

[Fist and Faith]

I wouldn't say the good outweighs the crimes. I'd probably put them on even footing. Faith, both the good and bad aspects, has shaped human history as much as anything else. Things like Bach and the Sistine Chapel are as important as the Spanish Inquisition. If we went back in time and rid our species of faith, so that we'd lose both the good and bad results of it, we'd only find that something else inspired good and bad anyway.

[Avatar]

Agree with Fist. Both great good and terrible ill have resulted.

--A