Drugs instead of spirituality

[drug_mentor]

drug mentor, as I understand it, the metaphor means that we are each a part of one connected whole, and that the cost of being a first person participant in this material world was losing sight of this fact and focusing instead on our individual separateness. This suffering will continue until we find a way to reunite with our Source, and recognize that we are merely emanations of it. The was this solves the problem of evil is that it proposes we sentient beings hurt other sentient beings, by our action or inaction, out of ignorance of our true nature as pieces of the Godhead, and that once we shed this ignorance, we will fall into a pattern of being at peace with, and full of compassion for, yourself, other sentient beings, and the world at large. I'm no expert on this, though.

I think maybe you have misinterpreted the problem of evil. The problem of evil is essentially as follows; God is alleged (by some) to be both benevolent and omnipotent, if God is omnipotent then He has the power to prevent evil from existing, if God is benevolent then He would not allow evil to exist. The fact that evil does exist suggests that God is either not benevolent, not omnipotent, or both.

If Gnosticism entails that we are all God and there is no explicit creator then you could argue that those who subscribe to Gnosticism don't take God to be omnipotent, in this sense it could be said that the Gnostic view avoids the problem of evil, but this is a claim which is quite distinct from the claim that the view solves the problem of evil. Atheism also avoids the problem of evil, but would not generally be said to solve the problem for a parallel and obvious reason (i.e. the problem of evil is a problem for adherents of a distinctly different set of claims than those held by the atheist).

Why believe it? Well, this is a common message I've distilled from wisdom figures I've read from all around the world. It seems to be a common conclusion that mystics have reached.

Surely you recognise this is not a particularly good reason to believe something. I would think the argument should appeal to you, not just the conclusion. If this is so then it ought to be irrelevant how many people believe it, as it only takes one person to advance a powerful argument. Of course, the mystics could be correct, but believing something largely because they do is not likely to make you correct.

But at the bottom of it all, I believe because I want to. Life is pretty painful, and I see that in many manifestations daily. It helps to stay open to the possibility that I'm here in this life right now on some sort of cosmic mission, whatever that may be. In my list of priorities in life, having a life that's meaningful definitely ranks above having a life that is systematically and rationally understood.

There are many things which would be really nice or convenient to believe, but this fact alone says nothing about the merit or accuracy of any of those beliefs. I would also like to live a life that is meaningful, I just have a hard time understanding why so many people feel a need to believe in something which they acknowledge is not rational to derive this meaning. I like to think I can derive some meaning for my life out of my own goals and values, as opposed to a faith based belief system.

 

[Xorkoth]

Also, it's a fallacy to believe that because science doesn't give an opinion on spirituality therefore spirituality doesn't exist. Science is very limited in the questions it can address. What happened before the Big Bang comes to mind. By definition, time might not have existed here, but it or something analogous to it had to exist somewhere else for it to have happened. Expansion is the change in volume over time.
Despite all of the books and papers written by Nobel Prize winners and neuroscientists that attempt to explain consciousness, science still fails at explaining it. The books and papers are nothing but a bunch of hand waving by famous people.

I agree with this completely. The fact that science has not revealed proof of any underlying spiritual concepts doesn't show that such things do not exist. There are simply topics that science is not able to address at this time. Maybe in the future it will, I tend to think that's true actually, but right now we're not there. In my mind one can't see lack of evidence as proof.

 

[MyDoorsAreOpen]

drug mentor, the small but sufficient amount of faith I have is not rational. In this case, it's a combination of intuition, some experiences I've had that have been truly otherworldly, and the guidance of others who've sought mystical union before me and have written about it. Not everything I (or most people, I suspect) think, say, or do is rational, and I'm fine with that.

 

[drug_mentor]

drug mentor, the small but sufficient amount of faith I have is not rational. In this case, it's a combination of intuition, some experiences I've had that have been truly otherworldly, and the guidance of others who've sought mystical union before me and have written about it. Not everything I (or most people, I suspect) think, say, or do is rational, and I'm fine with that.

Not everything I do or say is rational either. There is a distinction between belief and action, an action is performed quite quickly and often without reflection, a belief is something which is generally held over a persistent period of time and involves some level of reflection. Of course, it is likely that I have some beliefs which are not rational, but I am not presently aware that those beliefs are not rational. As soon as I become aware that a belief cannot be rationally justified I abandon that belief. I am really curious what kind of reason, other than wishful thinking, one might have for believing something which they know is not rational.

Do you feel rationality is inadequate when it comes to the task of finding meaning in your life? If so, why? If not, why the need for a belief system which you more or less acknowledge to be irrational?

 

[Ksa]

I think maybe you have misinterpreted the problem of evil. The problem of evil is essentially as follows; God is alleged (by some) to be both benevolent and omnipotent, if God is omnipotent then He has the power to prevent evil from existing, if God is benevolent then He would not allow evil to exist. The fact that evil does exist suggests that God is either not benevolent, not omnipotent, or both.

You cannot pretend to know the mind of God by saying what God should do, unless you are God. God created both good and evil, and both come from him when bestowed upon you:

(If any good reaches them, they say, “This is from Allah,” but if any evil befalls them, they say, “This happened because of you.” Say: “All things are from Allah.” What is wrong with these people that they do not understand any word?)

Why create Evil? As a test for the good, as it is mentioned in Surah Al-Ankabut:

2. Do people think that they will be left alone because they say: "We believe," and will not be tested.

3. And We(plural of respect referring to Allah in Arabic language) indeed tested those who were before them. And Allah will certainly make (it) known (the truth of) those who are true, and will certainly make (it) known (the falsehood of) those who are liars, (although Allah knows all that before putting them to test).

 

[drug_mentor]

You cannot pretend to know the mind of God by saying what God should do, unless you are God. God created both good and evil, and both come from him when bestowed upon you:

It seems rather self-evident that if God was benevolent he would not create evil, and he would certainly not bestow it on people.

I didn't make any normative claims about what God ought to do. I outlined a course of action that a rational being of a certain disposition would take if they were in a position to do so, there is nothing controversial about this.

I never asked the question why create evil, I am sure someone could cook up any number of possible reasons why God might do so. This doesn't remotely interest me, I don't believe in God.

 

[Ksa]

It seems rather self-evident that if God was benevolent he would not create evil, and he would certainly not bestow it on people.

I didn't make any normative claims about what God ought to do. I outlined a course of action that a rational being of a certain disposition would take if they were in a position to do so, there is nothing controversial about this.

I never asked the question why create evil, I am sure someone could cook up any number of possible reasons why God might do so. This doesn't remotely interest me, I don't believe in God.

An-Nisa' 78 clearly states that evil comes from God and so does the Bible. You are assuming that you would be better off if evil was not bestowed upon you, but God knows that it is towards your benefit for you to face evil, as it is mentioned in those verses and many others.

If you were a rational God, you would wipe out evil from existence, notice that things are going from bad to worst, than restore evil. But because you do not have the power to wipe out evil, you assume you would be better off without it which isn't true.

 

[drug_mentor]

I am not assuming anything, do you know what omnipotent means? It means having unlimited power, i.e. the ability to do anything. If God could do anything then God could create a perfect world without evil. I don't claim a being I don't believe in is either omnipotent or benevolent. The point is that some people claim God is both of these things, but this claim is logically impossible.

If you do not believe in a God which is both omnipotent and benevolent then the problem of evil is not a philosophical problem for your set of religious beliefs. If you believe there is a God which is both of these things then I suggest you familiarise yourself more thoroughly with the definitions of those words.

 

[socko]

Because awareness is the product of turning on a very complex machine, if they can't explain the machine properly, how can they explain awareness?
....

This is only an asumption. Although it's only an assumption, it's very popular among scientists and the scientificly litterate public. Despite its widespread support, it is an UNTESTABLE hypothesis (given our current level of technology). It fails Popper's requirements of testability and falsifiability. In other words, not a scientific one. I like to think one day it will be testable.

 

[Xorkoth]

Not everything I do or say is rational either. There is a distinction between belief and action, an action is performed quite quickly and often without reflection, a belief is something which is generally held over a persistent period of time and involves some level of reflection. Of course, it is likely that I have some beliefs which are not rational, but I am not presently aware that those beliefs are not rational. As soon as I become aware that a belief cannot be rationally justified I abandon that belief. I am really curious what kind of reason, other than wishful thinking, one might have for believing something which they know is not rational.

Do you feel rationality is inadequate when it comes to the task of finding meaning in your life? If so, why? If not, why the need for a belief system which you more or less acknowledge to be irrational?

I have beliefs I hold that are not strictly rational (though it was rational decisions that led me to have these beliefs). For me, it centers around the belief that we are all the universe experiencing itself subjectively. I have no proof for this, but experiences I have had, and intuition, lead me to it. When it comes to the big whys, why are we here, why do we experience, etc, we simply can't know the answer to that. It's a rational viewpoint to maintain agnosticism in the face of this, and my beliefs are able change in the face of new evidence, and they have throughout my life. But I choose to follow my feeling on the matter, rather than simply say, "I don't know". I mean, I don't know, and I recognize this, but I still say "I think I know". To me there's nothing irrational about this.

 

[Ksa]

If God could do anything then God could create a perfect world without evil.

you could also say that, how come God does not destroy this world, if he can? So he can't. Lol. Cmon, have your coffee.

 

[drug_mentor]

you could also say that, how come God does not destroy this world, if he can? So he can't. Lol. Cmon, have your coffee.

As I indicated in my last post, it is not my claim that God is omnipotent. I am sure that those who believe God is omnipotent would not consider the claim that God can destroy the world to be controversial.

You seem to be having trouble following my posts, which is a shame because I thought I had worded them quite clearly. It might pay to read them again before you make another completely irrelevant post.

Xorkoth, I will address your post after some sleep.

 

[tokezu]

Why is there evil when we are all one? Well, it had to be either by accident or by design.

As I understand gnosticism (I don't know a whole lot about it, mind you) it argues for the former. It poses the existence of the one true god, from which there was some kind of "fall" creating some kind of "lesser gods" and eventually the demiurg emerged. The demiurg then created the material word including humans, and made them believe he was the one true god, because he wanted to be worshipped, something the one true god would have no interest in. The one true god then felt sorry for these humans and instilled them with a divine spark. It is in this divine spark that we are all one with the one true god, we are not one with god when it comes to the realm of matter. All matter is evil/non-divine from this point of view, because it was created by the demiurg with evil intentions. All this is referring to the gnostic sects of early christianity, I am not at all sure if others above referred to a different kind of gnosticism.

The other possibility is that evil exists by design, this would, I think, fit in with the atman-brahman-philosophy. (At least in the interpretation of Alan Watts that I'm a little familiar with. I'm not sure how far he strayed from the original sources as hinduism can be pretty bleak at times) In this case it wasn't some kind of demon or anything, but 'god' (brahman) himself who created the material world, for the purpose of entertaining himself. Afterall being the only being in existence gets kind of boring pretty soon, so he created these 'dreams' where he imagined himself not as one, but as separate beings interacting with each other. Bringing evil/suffering into this dream is just another step to make it less boring, it is simply needed to add some suspense. And when it's all said and done he is going to wake up and remember his true nature and that all the evil (but also the good of course) was merely an illusion, so no harm no foul.

If I had to choose, I would like the second option much better. But guess what I'm just a unspiritual druggie.

Just kidding of course... kind of. Just like Foreigner, I might call myself a seeker, but the word 'spiritual' means nothing to me... I don't know, not to step on anybodys toes but I really shudder when people call themselves spiritual, it seems to me as vague and unspecific and almost as corny as somebody calling themselves 'deep' as if that would say anything about them. I don't have any beliefs concerning anything other-worldly, the atman-brahman thing kind of makes sense to me and I really wouldn't mind it to be true, but belief? ... no I am an agnostic through and through, I don't know and I don't need to know. What I know is, how I want to conduct myself in this world. I try to have a positive effect on this world, if through this I have also had a positve effect on something other-worldly that's a nice bonus but it is not a necessety.

I define spirituality as being open to the possibility that your life, your present existence in the apparent world around you, is part of some greater cosmic plan by some sort of higher power. Thus to not be a spiritual person, as I define it, is to not be particularly open to any such possibility, and fairly convinced that your existence and your world are accidental and inconsequential, and there is no greater plan or higher power.

I think the mere possibility to be consequential in this world is nothing scoff at. I don't need a greater plan or a higher power for that.

 

[Ksa]

As I indicated in my last post, it is not my claim that God is omnipotent. I am sure that those who believe God is omnipotent would not consider the claim that God can destroy the world to be controversial.

You seem to be having trouble following my posts, which is a shame because I thought I had worded them quite clearly. It might pay to read them again before you make another completely irrelevant post.

Xorkoth, I will address your post after some sleep.

I was replying to your posts as though you had written #22...you're both moderators and I confused the 2 of you, maybe you shouldn't have 1,000 moderators on the site would b good bro.

 

[Nixiam]

Skimmed these posts and I like where it has gotten.

The concept of good/evil, its origins, where it resides, and why it exists in the first place is kind of tricky to approach.

Spiritually, let us say that there is indeed a god, but go no further. He may or may not be the god of the abrahamic religions, or the polytheistic religions, or he may be neither and those were only caused by people trying to explain shit. As the creator, he would indeed have created both good and bad. He could be a passive god. He might have gifted us with nature and science, made us smart enough to inquire whether we are predetermined or free, and seubsequently conclude for ourselves. But let's say that the only thing that matters right now is good and bad. God made everything, good and evil. Productivity vs. Harm
If god made us with the idea that we should have the most free will possible in this terribly complex universe, then what we make of good and bad is up to us.
How can there be good without bad? What is there to define one without the other? Infinite peace of progress would no longer be 'good', it would be normal. Call this god malevolent if you wish, but that is just indirectly blaming him for the things we are.

Non spiritually, good and evil is only a product of nature. Survival, a cycle.

 

[Ksa]

I personally think awareness is a mistake. Continuous and incredibly intense pleasure can exist and be felt by an organism without it being aware. If I have to choose between living 100 years as a human being, or living 1 year as that organism, I choose the organism. I honestly don't give a fuck about what's up, whatever is up then so be it, I only care about what my cock feels and for how long.

I don't support the idea that a pleasure-less existence, perhaps filled with intense pain here and there, like when your throat is bitten off by a lion in wild-life, is worth it just because you're aware and you get to see things. I just don't give a fuck.

 

[belligerent drunk]

This is only an asumption. Although it's only an assumption, it's very popular among scientists and the scientificly litterate public. Despite its widespread support, it is an UNTESTABLE hypothesis (given our current level of technology). It fails Popper's requirements of testability and falsifiability. In other words, not a scientific one. I like to think one day it will be testable.

I don't necessarily agree with what you seem to be implying. While it is true that that is one of the things we're unable to describe using the scientific method, it doesn't automatically make it a free-for-all in terms of explanations. Just because science is unable to model and explain consciousness/awareness, doesn't mean that anything goes and you can explain it in any way you want. I mean, you can, but it's nonsense.

Forgive me if I'm reading your thoughts incorrectly, but it seems like you're using the age old fallacy in this context of the like "we can't explain it, therefore God 'dun it".

And then again, even if the hypothesis (read: idea) is untestable/unfalsifiable, we can forgo that problem if all of our other observations point to that and only that explanation/model. Sure, it's not ideal, but if 99% of what you know suggests *that* model, then you can be sufficiently confident that it is likely correct or at least somewhat correct.

 

[socko]

I think it's worse to attribute our consciousness to a man in the clouds than the complex machine hypothesis. The idea that consciousness arises from a sufficiently complex machine comes from facts like the complex circuitry and programming of computers can perform some tasks the brain can perform. Make the machine sophisticated enough and its algorhythms clever enough and it will become conscious. The fastest computers have the computational ability of a house cat, but they don't have a cat's awareness. I don't buy either explanation. Science only scratches the surface of reality. There are still a lot of mysteries. Physics can't even explain what space is, dark energy, time, and lots of other basic questions. I think consciosness will remain a mystery as long as we try to study it with the methods we use.

 

[belligerent drunk]

I think it's worse to attribute our consciousness to a man in the clouds than the complex machine hypothesis.

I was under the impression that you were suggesting the opposite. My bad. That said, you're right - there are a lot of mysteries. But I think it's intellectual laziness to just give up the search and say "well, we can't understand it, so let's just say God did it".

 

[malakaix]

I have a theory, and that is that a lot of frequent drug users have drugs instead of spirituality, with drugs occupying that same niche of shock absorber for the bumpy road of life, probably because they have not been, and don't think they ever will be, able to entertain the notion that there is any greater cosmic purpose to their lives. Does anyone relate to this or think I'm onto something?

I believe it could be a possibility, the two may act as a buffer between your self and the emptiness of life.

There are times I wish I could be more superficial. Especially when I feel alienated not only from the majority population, but also from a significant number of people who like to "get deep", a significant number of whom, after much thought, have gotten comfortable with the idea that their existence has no plan or purpose -- a conclusion I don't think I'll ever be comfortable with.

I actually think that a significant number of people do believe (subconsciously) that their existence has a plan and purpose but they will express otherwise because it's painful to consider the possibility that everything is meaningless and easier to dismiss it without thinking to much about it. To actually genuinely believe that life has no purpose requires intense introspection, because letting go of that possibility, that hope that there is a point to all of this is the last obstacle between your self and absolute emptiness.

I would say I'm one of those people who "got deep" and became comfortable with their existence having no purpose after years of meticulous introspection. But therein lies the paradox, you're no longer seeking an arbitrary point in space and time but have re-positioned yourself to the center. Free to define purpose and meaning as you see it. I'm satisfied with this with respect to been as authentic as possible, but it's not perfect in my mind and I still experience frustration but i'm pretty certain this is a journey which will never end, but just continue to go deeper.

I should note I'm heavily influenced by existentialism if it's not already evident.