Where Exactly Do We Draw The Line?

When people ask me whether I believe in a religion, or am an atheist, or am an agnostic, I tend to just say I’m non-religious. The reason I do that is because atheists don’t believe there are such things as Gods ( which seems to be false ), and agnostics don’t believe God’s existence is provable, which depending on the God we’re talking about, also seems false, but I don’t belong to any church either, so I just say I’m non-religious. But what exactly does that mean? Where exactly do we draw that line? Can a person be “spiritual” without being religious? What does that word “spiritual” even mean?

To use the right-brain / left-brain concept to illustrate ( whether the concept is true or not doesn’t matter ), if a person is out in nature, and meditates on setting aside their rational left-brain impulses, and after some time comes to a point where they feel as though they have become attuned to some larger reality where all things are connected in a way that cannot be experienced in any objective analytical way, is that religious? Is it religious even if no deity or worship is involved? Is meditation always a ritual? Or is it only a ritual when non-scientists do it?

It seems to me that as we distill it all down, there are certain obvious answers that fall on one side of the fence or the other. But eventually, we arrive at a certain blurry line where what is and isn’t religion, and what is and isn’t religious, becomes more a matter of personal opinion than something that can be backed by purely objective analysis. So does everything on this subject have to fall on one side of the fence or the other? Or is having one foot in the Twilight Zone enough to brand someone as completely woo woo? Thoughts? Opinions? It’s all wide open for discussion.

Atheists do not believe in any gods. That is a lack of belief in gods. They may, but do not necessarily also hold the active belief that there are no gods. Some god exists is a belief. I “do not believe” that any god exists is a lack of belief. And then “I believe no gods exist” is a belief opposite the first belief.

As for agnostics believing gods cannot be proved, that is not false currently, but could be false if a god made itself known. BUT for that to happen the god would first have to exist. Given that no god has ever been proven, coupled with the fact that there has never been a single instance of any actual discovery suggesting anything other than the natural world (no ghosts, no magic, no psychic powers have ever been proved, many have been disproved) I would say that it is absolutely true provisionally. I saw somewhere else where you mentioned people worshiping the Sun, which we know to exist. In that text you were conflating the Sun as it exists with the Sun as a god. Proving the Sun exists as a physical thing is not proving the existence of any god just because some primitives confused a physical object with a magical one. You can easily prove “the Sun” exists, but you cannot prove “a Sun god” exists.

As for the rest of it, religiosity and spirituality are very personal things. You can’t even get a clear definition of what “spiritual” means because it is so different to each person. Religion is similar. I have a friend who has a “faith, NOT a religion!” and I have gotten in trouble many times for accidentally using the wrong word. It is not for me to define his beliefs for him, or to label them in a way I am comfortable with. Your example is one of a person who begins to “feel as though they have become attuned to some…” You made the example more specific, but it doesn’t need to be. What a person “feels” is religious if the person “feels” it is. It is not for me to say that I know what they are feeling better than they.

@widdershins With respect to Atheism, we’re saying the same thing. I’m not saying atheists can believe there were once gods, but that they’re just no longer around, therefore there are no gods. I’m saying that not believing there are such things as gods is being used in the same context as not believing in the existence of gods, which is the Encarta definition, as well as the Wikipedia definition ( well footnoted ), as well as every other source I checked, with some obscure loopholes. Anyway, not to trifle over the minutiae of the various interpretations for atheism. I think we’re on the same page.

Agnosticism is a little different. It hinges on the word “proof”, which at its core is purely subjective. By that, I mean that science doesn’t seek to “prove” ( or so they say ). Science seeks to find evidence that can be applied to ideas, hypotheses, and theories. Whether or not that evidence “proves” anything is a matter of whether or not it is deemed sufficient to justify someone’s belief in a claim. If the evidence is sufficient to justify belief in a claim, then that claim is considered proven.

From a purely skeptical perspective, no amount of evidence is sufficient. But from a less hard-line perspective, most people tend to have a threshold at which they think it is reasonable, based on the evidence, to believe a claim is true. So as I said, “proof” when not conflated with “evidence” becomes something purely subjective. For one person the evidence may be sufficient to prove a claim, while for another person, the same evidence may not be sufficient.

Given this situation, the existence of gods ( at least in a historical context ) is provable to some people, and not to others. Logically, it follows from there that if something exists within a group, it makes no difference whether everyone in the group holds a consensus about it being there. It exists regardless of those who choose to deny it.

Returning to the example of the Sun as a deity. It is entirely reasonable in my mind to believe that there is not only the physical object we call the Sun, but that there is also the case that it has been deified by others. Given that deification is the defining factor for any God, it is therefore entirely as reasonable to believe that the Sun as a God exists ( or at least existed ) for some people, and therefore its existence as a god is logically proven ( whether I personally subscribe to that belief of not ).

The only alternative is to claim that the Sun has never been deified, which seems to go against what my professors were saying. We can apply the same logic to pretty much any deity, including “living gods”, where people who are as objectively real as anyone else have been deified. But when we get into non-physical supernaturanuratal entities, the question of proof shifts from the issue of evidence for the deification of something known to be objectively real, to evidence for whatever has in the minds of believers, been deified, but is not known to be objectively real in the same way the Sun and people are. That “proof” is much more elusive, if not impossible to obtain.

I tend to resonate at least in part with your last comment. If I understand it correctly, you’re suggesting that if someone feels they are religious, then that is sufficient criteria to justify their claim to being religious. The only problem there is that we can all feel things that we believe make things a certain way, and also be wrong. So it matters, or at least IMO it should matter that there are objective baselines from which to judge particular issues.

As indicated above, with religion, the most significant of those baselines is the issue of deification. In the absence of any deification, I contend that there is very little justification for calling any belief a religion. However, some might argue that the performance of rituals, particularly in an organized communal setting, can be construed as religious. Personally however, I contend that an absence of deification makes any religion nothing more than a façade.

Here however, is where the lines get blurry again: The third entry for religion in Encarta defines religion as: “personal beliefs or values: a set of strongly-held beliefs, values, and attitudes that somebody lives by”. In the absence of a deity, would it be fair to call such strongly-held beliefs, values, and attitudes a façade? I’m not sure. If not, then if one’s strongly-held beliefs, values, and attitudes are based largely on the principles of critical thinking, then critical thinking is a religion. Something about that makes me uncomfortable. How about you?

When somebody asks you “do you believe in X” the best thing you can do is ask “What’s your definition of X?”. Too many people just assume everyone knows what they’re talking about when it comes to religion, god, etc. So when someone asks you if you believe in god, your first response can be “what do you mean by god?” Just asking that will get the conversation going in the right direction, as in, if you can’t even define your terms, how can I answer your question. And if they do try to define what they mean, most often you’ll find they’re not engaging in a theological discussion but asking if you’re a Christian, Muslim, etc.

@cuthbertj Good post!

@believer
You misunderstood what I was saying about atheists. I have no problem with the definitions you’ve looked up, that atheists don’t believe in the existence of any gods. I think I misunderstood you a little too because what I was pointing out is that some atheists believe there are no gods, which is different. The first is a lack of belief in gods, the second is a belief that there are no gods.

I completely reject your argument that calling a thing a god makes that god exist. I find it a silly argument. By that argument I could call a random stray cat a god and, because I did so, the god I just made up on the spot “exists”. Simply making a claim has never been used to “logically prove” that claim. That is circular logic. The claim is its own “proof” that the claim is true. While I agree that the bar of proof is different for each person, logical proofing follows rules independent of belief.

And something doesn’t need to “be defined” to exist. What an arrogant thing to say. You are essentially saying that existence is completely dependent on human definition. Whether the Sun is “defined” or not is irrelevant. If it didn’t exist as it is we wouldn’t be here to define it. Saying it is a giant shiny orange in the sky and so eating oranges is taking God into yourself in no way affects reality or existence, only belief.

As for what people feel, there is no objective baseline for that. There cannot be. There’s no such thing as an “emotionometer” to measure and label human emotions and feelings. We believe we all experience things in at least a somewhat similar way, but it’s impossible for us to ever know that as we each only ever feel our own feelings, and that is a very subjective thing. So if I “feel” as if I am “religious” there can be no objective test for that because every part of it exists entirely in my own mind. If I were to say that I feel as if I have three arms, that you can objectively test for because part of it exists in the physical world. If I don’t have three arms then my feeling is wrong.

I think you’re getting too hung up on the definitions. Yes, words do have meaning and I am the first one to call you when you use them wrong. But again, when we’re discussing matters contained entirely within one’s own mind who am I to say that the thoughts in my mind about the thoughts in your mind are the “correct” ones? No true objective analysis can be done on thoughts and feelings. At least not to the point where you can tell someone, “No, what you feel about your own thoughts is wrong, this is how it really is.”

@widdershins To say that a person who is posting commentary using words is getting “too hung-up on definitions” isn’t rational unless the only thing that person is doing is writing nothing but definitions without any relevance to the subject matter. In this case, we’re talking about fine distinctions between religion and non-religion, which naturally includes concepts such as godhood, so it’s perfectly reasonable to be as clear and precise as possible about what that means. Such is the essence of critical thinking. You are free to simply object to that all you want. But the fact will remain that the less clear and precise you make your counterpoint, the less weight it will carry.

Having said that, after considering your comments, I see no reason to dismiss the relevance of the words “deity” or “deification”. Their meanings are of critical importance in understanding the core concept of gods and godhood, and it is only through the process of deification that any thing or idea attains the status of godhood. It is also not up to you or I to tell another person what they can or cannot deify. Nor did I make the claim that something needs to be defined in order to exist. What I said is: “In the absence of any deification, I contend that there is very little justification for calling any belief a religion.”

It’s also interesting to note your comment: “By that argument I could call a random stray cat a god.” Did you know that in Egypt, cats were regarded as living incarnation of Bastet who protects the household against granivores, whereas the lion-headed deity Sekhmet was worshipped as protector of the pharaohs. Hindus in India also consider their stray cattle to be sacred. So you’re just helping to make my point for me.

Then when you say: “As for what people feel, there is no objective baseline for that. There cannot be.” it doesn’t address the point I made, which is: “We can all feel things that we believe make things a certain way, and also be wrong.” I’m not sure how many examples you might need to accept this, but with a little effort I’m sure you can come up with at least a few, e.g. someone is told or sees something they assume is a way that makes them feel upset, only to find that their assumption was false, which then changes the way they feel. No “emotionmeter” is required to recognize that such situations can and do arise, or that they can be avoided by establishing a clear and precise understanding of what is going on.

So if anything, perhaps it’s you who needs to rethink their position. Having a well-formed position backed by independent references ( including a dictionary ) isn’t arrogant. It’s good debate. However undermining my argument by being dismissive and using personality slights ( even if they aren’t aimed at anyone in particular ) is unbecoming of the type of forum I had hoped CFI would turn out to be. At the same time, being somewhat of a casual environment for discussion, not everything needs to be footnoted in any formal style either, but let’s at least endeavor to find a balance that facilitates a progressive discussion.

@believer

I see what the issue is here. You’re saying a lot without actually “saying” anything. You are all over the place, using dictionary definitions for words in place of their universally understood meaning. Let me give you an example.

...the existence of gods ( at least in a historical context ) is provable to some people...
The word "provable" there is incorrect. By the dictionary definition, yes, it fits. But you do not "prove" to people some god exists, you "convince" people some god exists. Convince is the right word to use there, not prove. By using the dictionary definitions of words instead of the common usage you are able to say something which sounds like you are making a ludicrous claim without ever actually making any clear claim. I'm sure that explains the "witty" snipe at the end of your last post where you apparently think you've won the argument because I can't figure out what the hell you're saying.

So let me clarify a little. What it seemed you were claiming was that because people believed the Sun was a god then the Sun god actually exists, or did once. And that is exactly what you were saying. But it didn’t actually mean what it sounds like it meant because you were very careful to stay within the boundaries of the definitions of all of the words while straying as far as possible from common understanding.

My take on a god “existing” is that it is a real, tangible thing with the ascribed nature, abilities and consciousness. In other words, a real thing. What you were actually saying was that it “existed” to those people; that they truly believed it. That god was proved to exist to those people, therefore it was “proved to exist”. The proper word there is “convinced”, not “proved” first of all. Those people were “convinced” it existed. And never in my life have I ever seen ANY “evidence” any god exists and neither have you or anyone else. Many, many times I’ve seen the claim that someone has “proof” that some god exists only to find that all they have is a logical argument, or a fantastical claim. There is never any evidence. And yes, by the definition that is “proof”. But by the universally understood usage of the English language if it were “proof” then it would convince people to believe, not just convince those who already believe that they are super, super right. I can “prove” something is a square by taking measurements of angles and the lengths of the sides. If you asked me to prove something was a square and I instead gave you a logical argument you would think me a dumbass. By the definition, it would be “proof”. But by commonly understood usage you’re expecting facts.

So if you would like to restate your position using the common usage of the language instead of abusing definitions to stray from that common usage perhaps I could actually understand what you’re trying to get across. I’m not going to work for it. If you say a god “exists” I expect you to be saying that a real, tangible, conscious, supernatural being exists, not just that some primitives believed it, therefore it was as far as they were concerned. If that’s not what you’re saying then don’t bother to say it. I’m not going to play word ninja with you for a week so that you can keep pretending my argument is flawed because your argument is so buried in purposely constructed technicality that I don’t know what it actually is.

I have have found that atheism can be rather a broad grouping. To me the true atheist accepts god as a logical possibility but has not seen any evidence. But I have met some, and one was a close friend, who have strong faith that there never will be that evidence. My friend was passionate and learned about politics and history. I have seen him in debate many times and he was good, very good. I have seen him discuss god, or the afterlife too. Just as skillful but totally different body language. Agitated, angry, raising his voice etc. There is no doubt in my mind that he needed his faith.

after some time comes to a point where they feel as though they have become attuned to some larger reality where all things are connected in a way that cannot be experienced in any objective analytical way
 
that cannot be experienced in any objective analytical way
I looked at this thread and noticed the above quote. Do you know about evolution? Do you know about DNA? Do you know about the forces that made life possible on this planet?

I ask because all of that can be experienced in an objective analytical way, one that carry deep undercurrents of awareness and connectivity to ALL the rest of life right here on our planet. From there a feeling of spirituality, or connectivity to all life on this planet blossoms Just need to expand your mind beyond our Hollywood Erected Blinkers. :slight_smile:

https://confrontingsciencecontrarians.blogspot.com/2019/12/introduction-pageant-evolution-project.html

cheers

As for the rest of it, it lies with our own confusion and inability to discern the divide between Physical Reality and our subjective Mindscapes.

https://confrontingsciencecontrarians.blogspot.com/2018/09/key-to-gould-nonoverlapping-magisteria.html
We just love making things way more complicated and confusing - but than when entire branches of academic for profit are dependent on generating endless babble (a la the Hoffmans and Pinkerts) rather than actually constructively learning, what's to expect? At least when one get into philosophy, psychology and such belly-button gazing, mind games. {Genuine physical sciences not so much, except of course when profits and industry gets involved, AGW, etc.}
CC: "I looked at this thread and noticed the above quote. Do you know about evolution? Do you know about DNA? Do you know about the forces that made life possible on this planet?

I ask because all of that can be experienced in an objective analytical way, one that carry deep undercurrents of awareness and connectivity to ALL the rest of life right here on our planet. From there a feeling of spirituality, or connectivity to all life on this planet blossoms"


Careful with your flowery language. It’s starting to infect your message.

Are you saying that science (“evolution”, “DNA” and “the forces that made life possible on this planet”), can be “experienced in an objective analytical way…?”

I’m as deeply moved by the wonders of the universe, life, and our mental abilities, as you are. But telling someone who’s looking for a path from the supernatural to the natural that they can simply “experience” the truth, does them a disservice.

The spiritual feelings you and I have are similar to the feelings a religious person has in intensity and how they affect us, but their source is completely different. Until a religious person is looking at the world through a purely naturalistic lens they’ll inevitably be drawing from a different well for their spiritual feelings.

I have yet to meet a religious person who believes that my ‘spiritual’ feelings are more than a weak imitation of theirs. Maybe they’re not, I don’t know, but I do know that there are times I feel like running to them to proselytize for science when I read something amazing or see a child learning a new word literally while I am talking to them [a child’s brain is utterly amazing]!

The actual point I’m making is the only path to clarity and self-awareness - is through learning about evolution. Paying attention to nature (yes impossible for most our there, who are trapped in cities, but that’s a different matter.). Through the process of learning about these things, you make the connections within your own mind, I can’t transfer my experience to anyone else, I’m trying to talk about the path to take.

Physicalism together with deeply learning about Earth’s pageant of evolution, is the teacher, the lessons happen to those that do their homework.

In the Good Book, it is written: Seek and Ye Shall Find. I took that lesson to heart as a young guy and it’s never led me astray.


Birth of Spirituality ?

Actually the reason I pooped in again, is that I just finished helping my wife, ... restraining and reassuring Maddy as my wife did a little doctoring to her belly.  In the process of Maddy laying back relaxing, trusting, licking away at my open palm, it occurred to me this is where spirituality was born.

In the human connections we make, with each other and then with animals, and even non-living things.

That thing that simply happens inside.

That 'thing' that needed to be explained and understood - spirituality along with buried (and explicit) memories of the maternal bond.  Then came religions.

 

I would suggest that Spirituality is an emergent property of self-awareness and empathy and love.
Until a religious person is looking at the world through a purely naturalistic lens they’ll inevitably be drawing from a different well for their spiritual feelings.
I care less and less about the indoctrinated,

I’m way more worried about those few souls out there open to naturalism, but who never get to hear anyone else discussing it and standing up to justify it and recognize it’s importance.

 

The rest can have their teddy bears, but their self-serving paradigm is going to destroy our society and civilization, and our biosphere, as we are witnessing unfolding before our eyes.

“I ask because all of that can be experienced in an objective analytical way, one that carry deep undercurrents of awareness and connectivity to ALL the rest of life right here on our planet. From there a feeling of spirituality, or connectivity to all life on this planet blossoms Just need to expand your mind beyond our Hollywood Erected Blinkers”

@citizenschallengev3 No doubt about it, good scientific literature can create a sense of awe far beyond technical details. But that is not the mystical experience. For me one of the tell tale signs of the later is the distinct feeling that you have not learnt, but remembered something. In any other context this would be ridiculous. But it has been a part of mystical life around the world and across centuries. It is a rather transient experience yet the memory of it stays sharp. The visual recollection often includes symbols as much as memories of your surroundings.

I suspect that the sense of awe that you describe may come very close to it for some people, perhaps even being a precursor at times?

I like the sense of awe I get from learning some new scientific tidbit, but what I absolutely love is when that sense of awe is gone because I’ve learned enough about it that it’s just commonplace to me. I don’t know why, but I really prefer the point where it just isn’t that amazing any more because I have a good enough understanding of it to that incredible sense of awe.

I love the awe.

For some things it will go away as I understand more. But there are things my brain cannot wrap itself around and I will always have a spiritual feeling for them.

The size of the universe is one thing and the time scales involved is another. It is possible that I will lose a bit of awe when it comes to a child’s brain, but doubt it; they’re just too cool to not get giddy over.

For me, thinking about theses things is like being on the brink of a cliff; they give me a slightly queasy, ‘falling’ sensation. You could look at it as getting the thrill of a horror movie by thinking.

But that is not the mystical experience.
Okay, true enough. I didn't realize we were talking about the mystical experience, I thought we were discussing an awaken sense spirituality - or spiritual awareness. Mystical Experience is at a whole different level.

Though one where I bet a deeper physical understanding would certainly enhance the mystical experience.

 

Physical Reality v Mindscape,

…Mindscape is where all of our awarenesses unfold.

… take it from there. :wink:

You know now that you brought it up, it occurs to me,

Indeed, there might be something there.

 

Understanding deep time and deep wet Evolution, and really trying focus on, to climb into an awareness of the grande passage of generations. It can send you on a mind expanding cosmic journey, that actually does get close to mysticism. Trust me on that.

 

Scientific mysticism might actually be a thing - why not?

If hoffman can get away with denying physical reality, why not a simply change of the frame of reference, — totally focus on traveling back into deep time, and see where that takes your spirit? Definitely potential for mystical thoughts within that realm. Outside of our ego’s blinders. :slight_smile:

@3point14rat I love the awe.

For some things it will go away as I understand more. But there are things my brain cannot wrap itself around and I will always have a spiritual feeling for them.

The size of the universe is one thing and the time scales involved is another. It is possible that I will lose a bit of awe when it comes to a child’s brain, but doubt it; they’re just too cool to not get giddy over.

For me, thinking about theses things is like being on the brink of a cliff; they give me a slightly queasy, ‘falling’ sensation. You could look at it as getting the thrill of a horror movie by thinking.


 

I hear you.

 

cheers ∏ Happy Thanksgiving !