Belief in a 'Higher Power'.

Joe1919

I am wondering what your views on this are. In one sense there should be nothing controversial about believing in a 'higher power' and at the same time not believing in a personal god.

We can believe in 'the power of the markets' and Adam Smiths 'invisible hand' and of course sometimes we personalise nature (mother nature) and have personal beliefs, such as a beliefs in the 'spirit of the people' or the 'power and (overall) goodness of nature' or that 'nature always wins in the end'.

However, when we go this far, we are perhaps very close to becoming 'spiritual atheists' and there is perhaps very little difference between this view and 'pantheism', the view that God = Nature or the Universe.
(This view was close to the pre-Christian Hellenistic pagan philosophies).

It could also be argued that when individuals have a personal sense of 'god', what they really sense is a feeling of being 'inadequate' relative to the totality of power that could be argued is 'nature' rather than a personal 'god'.

Anyhow, I would welcome some serious thought out views on this.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Higher_Power
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pantheism

sink

I think it's plain as day wishful thinking. It's simply taking what one wants to be true and thinking it is so.

There is no reasoned argument behind it, indeed the 'higher power' is usually so ill-defined that it is utterly meaningless.

I'm open to the idea of a 'higher power', but first it requires a strong definition in order to be considered and then it needs firm logical underpinnings to be taken seriously. In the end without empirical evidence it's all just frivolous musing.

Daftendirekt

I agree with Sink.

I actually went through a phase of believing in a higher power of some sort, but eventually dropped the notion when I realised it was a belief based on nothing but... well... on nothing. In my case it was probably just part of the hangover of a religious upbringing.

The idea that the universe has some 'higher' purpose behind it without requiring a tyrannical deity is a nice one, and I can understand its appeal, but it isn't one that I'll be taking too seriously any time soon. Unless someone can present a decent case for it of course, but I won't be holding my breath.

Denerick

If there is a God, he doesn't conform to scientific understanding. In other words, he is beyond the detection of human beings with our rather primitive scientific apparatus. It is hard to imagine omnipresence but I'd also wager its equally hard for beings living in a kind of fourth dimension to understand our limited 3D bodies

I am now picturing a celestial gathering debating about whether 'mortals can exist, we've no evidence for them, no proof of their existance...'

Anyway... Carry on

This isn't a defence of religion or belief at all, its just a rather tongue in cheek critique of the 'cult of materialism'...

Joe1919

I would agree with you that there may be no higher purpose to life (except perhaps survival itself in an indirect sort of way). However, higher 'power' is not the same as higher 'purpose' and to accept that 'nature' (physics) is a more powerful and higher force than ourselves is perhaps not really that controversial. In accepting a 'higher power', we may be just claiming a sort of determinism that we are all governed by nature (or physical forces).

However, the one argument I would partly accept is that the whole idea of a 'higher power' could be considered 'trivial' in that most of us accept that we are bound by the laws and 'tyranny' of nature (physics).

However, thinking in terms of a 'higher power' may have advantages in terms of making us a little less self-conscious and egotistical and perhaps more humble in our overall view of life.

Joe1919

Denerick wrote: »

This isn't a defence of religion or belief at all, its just a rather tongue in cheek critique of the 'cult of materialism'...

An interesting link on "Sexed up Atheism"
http://www.pantheism.net/atheism.htm

amacachi

Joe1919 wrote: »

We can believe in 'the power of the markets' and Adam Smiths 'invisible hand' and of course sometimes we personalise nature (mother nature) and have personal beliefs, such as a beliefs in the 'spirit of the people' or the 'power and (overall) goodness of nature' or that 'nature always wins in the end'.

We can, many don't really believe in markets though, and markets are just a summation of personal choices.
"nature always wins in the end". Huh? What exactly isn't "nature"?

However, when we go this far, we are perhaps very close to becoming 'spiritual atheists' and there is perhaps very little difference between this view and 'pantheism', the view that God = Nature or the Universe.
(This view was close to the pre-Christian Hellenistic pagan philosophies).

I'm a skeptic which is part of what leads me to being atheist, I'm not "spiritual" in any way.

amacachi

Joe1919 wrote: »

I would agree with you that no there may be no higher purpose to life (except perhaps survival itself in an indirect sort of way). However, higher 'power' is not the same as higher 'purpose' and to accept that 'nature' (physics) is a more powerful and higher force than ourselves is perhaps not really that controversial. In accepting a 'higher power', we may be just claiming a sort of determinism that we are all governed by nature (or physical forces).

However, the one argument I would partly accept is that the whole idea of a 'higher power' could be considered 'trivial' in that most of us accept that we are bound by the laws and 'tyranny' of nature (physics).

However, thinking in terms of a 'higher power' may have advantages in terms of making us a little less self-conscious and egotistical and perhaps more humble in our overall view of life.

Oh right, so you're saying that this "higher power" is science. Fair enough.

Joe1919

amacachi wrote: »

Oh right, so you're saying that this "higher power" is science. Fair enough.

I am not saying that.

The word 'Science' means 'knowledge' and 'is a systematic enterprise of gathering knowledge about nature and organizing and condensing that knowledge into testable laws and theories'. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science

Science, as such, is the human understanding of nature and can error. Surely 'nature itself' is greater than the 'human understanding of nature' (science) and because of this, 'Nature' is the higher power.

I am inclined to think that many people error here. To elevate science above nature is to place our mental concepts (and beliefs) of nature above nature itself. Is this not the mistake that many religions make?

amacachi

I misspoke to an extent. But I still don't really see the point you're trying to make. I don't think there's anyone who would be atheist who doesn't believe that everything is bound by certain physical laws etc., and people who believe that there's another power tend to be those who believe in an intelligent higher power or in ghosts.

sink

I guess I share the core beliefs of pantheists, but would never describe myself as such.

It's like my enjoyment of watching star trek, I have seen nearly every tv episode and film and can distinguish a Cardassian from an Andorian but I would never describe myself as a trekkie, nor would I attend a convention and certainly never dress up with fake prosthetic ears.

In a similar fashion I have a certain reverence for the cosmos but would never subscribe to a religion based upon it.

In both cases of trekkieism and pantheism I couldn't help but feel a little silly. For people who are so inclined, more power to them.

Zombrex

Joe1919 wrote: »

I am wondering what your views on this are. In one sense there should be nothing controversial about believing in a 'higher power' and at the same time not believing in a personal god.

We can believe in 'the power of the markets' and Adam Smiths 'invisible hand' and of course sometimes we personalise nature (mother nature) and have personal beliefs, such as a beliefs in the 'spirit of the people' or the 'power and (overall) goodness of nature' or that 'nature always wins in the end'.

However, when we go this far, we are perhaps very close to becoming 'spiritual atheists' and there is perhaps very little difference between this view and 'pantheism', the view that God = Nature or the Universe.
(This view was close to the pre-Christian Hellenistic pagan philosophies).

It could also be argued that when individuals have a personal sense of 'god', what they really sense is a feeling of being 'inadequate' relative to the totality of power that could be argued is 'nature' rather than a personal 'god'.

Anyhow, I would welcome some serious thought out views on this.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Higher_Power
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pantheism

Humans have a natural tendency to view in nature human like agents. This allows the brain to process the vast amount of data that comes into our brains from the vast number of systems in a manner that doesn't cause our brain to melt.

So we see patterns and agency in natural systems, from the weather to the stars.

Some go so far as to believe in deities, others have more fuzzy concepts such as "mother nature".

All of this comes down to evolution and how our brains like to organize data.

Joe1919

I suppose another way of looking at this is to ask 'What do I find most objectionable about certain forms of Theism'.

Now in itself, the claim that there exists some type of 'higher power' or even God is not that objectionable.

However, it's when humans claim some type of infallible or revealed knowledge or authority or privileged position or access to this power that perhaps things start getting ugly.

What's wrong with religion (in my view) is its use and abuse and the amount of 'noble lies' that have been added to the idea of a 'higher power' in order to increase the power of belief and make it a political tool. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noble_lie

I can understand why the very word 'God' sends shivers down some peoples spine. The 'God' of Christianity, for example, is often portrayed as a very cruel and jealous God who sends multitudes to eternal damnation for little or no reasons (e.g having a little fun). Also, in many cases, this God may have been forced down our necks by parents and teachers and for many; the world could be seen as a better place if this whole idea of a 'higher power' or God could disappear.

However, is there a danger that we are throwing out the baby with the bathwater so to speak in terms of denying some type of higher power or sacredness to Nature and the Universe, as religions did before Christianity?

Its just a thought.....

strobe

I don't think there is anything wrong with having a reverence for nature or for the cosmos. I think for most atheists what they find objectionable about theism is that if you believe that there is a supreme power and that power is an authority above all else then you will, in a lot of cases, feel justified in enforcing that authority on other people. The other thing for me I find undesirable about it is that people believe that this power is capable of communicating directly with them while at the same time believe all morality is derived from it. So while Christians believe this power has commanded "thou shalt not kill" they also believe that it can suspend this commandment, or any commandment, temporarilly in certain situations. Or that if it decided one day to command "thou shal kill every second person you know", then that commandment would be moral. It's creepy.

PeterIanStaker

I prefer to believe that I am part of a solar system that was created by energy, matter, antimatter, etc rather than created by a being.

Besides if there are beings that created the universe, we are to them as microbes are to us.

roosh

Very interesting topic, and should hopefully provide some interesting points. I won't offer my own opinion, as it is probably fairly well known. Just wanted to post a quote, that relates to this issue.

Eckhart Tolle's the Power of Now wrote:

You used the word Being. Can you explain what you mean by that?

Being is the eternal, ever-present One Life beyond the myriad forms of life that are subject to birth and death. However, Being is not only beyond but also deep within every form as its innermost invisible and indestructible essence. This means that it is accessible to you now as your own deepest self, your true nature. But don't seek to grasp it with your mind. Don't try to understand it. You can know it only when the mind is still. When you are present, when your attention is fully and intensely in the Now, Being can be felt, but it can never be understood mentally. To regain awareness of Being and to abide in that state of "feeling-realization" is enlightenment.


When you say Being, are you talking about God? If you are, then why don't you say it?

The word God has become empty of meaning through thousands of years of misuse. I use it sometimes, but I do so sparingly. By misuse, I mean that people who have never even glimpsed the realm of the sacred, the infinite vastness behind that word, use it with great conviction, as if they knew what they are talking about. Or they argue against it, as if they knew what it is that they are denying. This misuse gives rise to absurd beliefs, assertions, and egoic delusions, such as "My or our God is the only true God, and your God is false," or Nietzsche's famous statement "God is dead."

The word God has become a closed concept. The moment the word is uttered, a mental image is created, no longer, perhaps, of an old man with a white beard, but still a mental representation of someone or something outside you, and, yes, almost inevitably a male someone or something.

Neither God nor Being nor any other word can define or explain the ineffable reality behind the word, so the only important question is whether the word is a help or a hindrance in enabling you to experience That toward which it points. Does it point beyond itself to that transcendental reality, or does it lend itself too easily to becoming no more than an idea in your head that you believe in, a mental idol?

The word Being explains nothing, but nor does God. Being, however, has the advantage that it is an open concept. It does not reduce the infinite invisible to a finite entity. It is impossible to form a mental image of it. Nobody can claim exclusive possession of Being. It is your very essence, and it is immediately accessible to you as the feeling of your own presence, the realization I am that is prior to I am this or I am that. So it is only a small step from the word Being to the experience of Being.

The Power of Now - Eckhart Tolle

goingpostal

Anytime I hear someone using the term 'higher power' now, I cringe. It is always a woefully nebulous and ill-defined concept. I consider it to be just a Santa Claus for grownups.

Joe1919

mangaroosh wrote: »

The word God has become empty of meaning through thousands of years of misuse. ......The word God has become a closed concept. The moment the word is uttered, a mental image is created..........

I am not really familar with Eckhart Tolle but I would have no problem with this.

I accept that much of what pantheists have to say does not conflict with reason, but I can see why many may find this trivial or even 'repulsive'.

Much of this (as Tolle states) is because of mental images associated with the use of religious type language which may be either positive or negative.

However, there may be an aesthetic dimension to this. (imo) Some people may enjoy and get inspiration and meaning from discussions on 'Higher Powers' etc whereas others may find this meaningless and uninteresting and perhaps boring.

Joe1919

goingpostal wrote: »

Anytime I hear someone using the term 'higher power' now, I cringe. It is always a woefully nebulous and ill-defined concept. I consider it to be just a Santa Claus for grownups.

I accept some of what you say. But does it all boil down to a matter of taste? And some people get inspiration from the concept and it helps them with addiction problems etc.
The 'Higher Power' concept does differ from the Santa Claus concept in that the latter is a myth.

goingpostal

Joe1919 wrote: »

I accept some of what you say. But does it all boil down to a matter of taste? And some people get inspiration from the concept and it helps them with addiction problems etc.
The 'Higher Power' concept does differ from the Santa Claus concept in that the latter is a myth.

And your proof that this invisible, intangible, indefinable Higher Power is not a myth is......?
People claiming that they get inspiration from the concept does nothing to prove that it is real or true.
My experience of people using this term, is that they don't want to be nailed down to a religious dogma, but want to believe that there is a personal god, who can hear and answer their prayers in real time. When questioned closely, they will remember all the times their prayers were "answered", ie the times they got what they asked for, and they will discount all the times their prayers were ignored. Cherry-picking the evidence. Hence, the comparison with Santa Claus, which is apparent to me. At times like this, I often think of the old atheist slogan "20,000 children died of hunger today in Africa, why should god answer your prayers"

Joe1919

goingpostal wrote: »

And your proof that this invisible, intangible, indefinable Higher Power is not a myth is......?

As I said earlier in the thread, the pre-Christians considered 'Nature' and the 'Universe' to be higher powers. I dont see this as that controversal and it is (imo) more credible than 'Santa Claus'

goingpostal

Joe1919 wrote: »

As I said earlier in the thread, the pre-Christians considered 'Nature' and the 'Universe' to be higher powers. I dont see this as that controversal and it is (imo) more credible than 'Santa Claus'

Pre-Christians didn't have biology and physics and chemistry to explain how the world came into being. It is understandable that they would have attributed the bewildering mysteries of the world to some kind of magic or supernatural being. Even a rudimentary understanding of the above mentioned scientific disciplines (which is what I possess) demolishes any belief in human exceptionalism or some kind of divine plan or purpose in our human existence. I find the idea that our species is somehow above or apart from all the other species, solipsistic and arrogant.

magicbastarder

i think this is the best answer to the OP:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oqlauwX_ums

goingpostal

Dig those 80s threads and that mullet!

Joe1919

goingpostal wrote: »

Pre-Christians didn't have biology and physics and chemistry to explain how the world came into being. It is understandable that they would have attributed the bewildering mysteries of the world to some kind of magic or supernatural being. Even a rudimentary understanding of the above mentioned scientific disciplines (which is what I possess) demolishes any belief in human exceptionalism or some kind of divine plan or purpose in our human existence. I find the idea that our species is somehow above or apart from all the other species, solipsistic and arrogant.

You have not read the previous threads. There is nowhere a mention of 'supernatural being' and I specifically pointed out the difference between 'higher power and 'higher purpose' in the fifth thread, so I cant see why you are introducing the idea of a 'divine plan'. Indeed, the whole idea of this form of pantheism is that everything is natural, including whatever it is that that causes the earth to be whatever it is.

The idea of a 'higher power' goes right back and possibly beyond the idea that the sun is the higher power (a reasonable assumption at the time as the sun is the main source of our energy) .
I agree with you that the idea that our species is somehow above or apart from all the other species is solipsistic and arrogant. Thats the whole point. A belief in a higher power may be as simple as an acceptance that we are all part of a greater natural Cosmos etc. which is a 'Higher Power'.

Its so simple that it could be considered trivial.

Truley

I have absolutely no religious or mystical beliefs but I do believe in the concept of higher power. I usually base my life and my relationships on the idea that there are three 'truths,' your truth, my truth, and the unbiased, objective truth. The objective truth is beyond what you or I could ever fully experience or understand because what we interperet as real or true is always based on our relationship to that entity and our understanding of it. As such I almost never fully suscribe to the idea that something is true or real, only that it is an interpretation of what is the truth. I carry this 'higher power' belief in every aspect of my life from relationships with other people, my views on society, politics, science and religion. I find it a great exercise in open-mindedness, empathy and tolerance.

Joe1919 wrote: »

I agree with you that the idea that our species is somehow above or apart from all the other species is solipsistic and arrogant.

While obviously I don't believe that humans are 'higher' species from any other, I do think that humans are somewhat apart from animals in the sense that as a grouping we are so destructive and so at odds with the world around us in a way no other species really is. I don't think it's an arrogant view though.

Joe1919

Truley wrote: »

....While obviously I don't believe that humans are 'higher' species from any other, I do think that humans are somewhat apart from animals in the sense that as a grouping we are so destructive and so at odds with the world around us in a way no other species really is. I don't think it's an arrogant view though.

I understand what you are saying here in the sense that not only every species but every individual may have some small individual feature that set them apart from others.

However, one of the possible advantages of thinking in terms of a 'Higher Power' is to take the focus off ourselves as individuals, to reduce our own self-consciousness, which is often the source of suffering and to open up to the world/cosmos to our consciousness.

There is nothing magical or supernatural in this. The worst , for example, that Richard Dawkins can say about this is that its 'sexed up atheism'.
But then, is this not a sort of admission by Dawkins that atheism is dull and boring and can give no satisfaction to the atheist ?
http://books.google.ie/books?id=yq1xDpicghkC&pg=PA18&dq=dawkins+sexed+up+atheism&cd=1#v=onepage&q&f=false

roosh

Just for the sake of playing devils advocate, if we assume that there is such a higher power, what would it mean in practical terms? Would it be just as many christians believe in God, but might not truly understand what God is?

Would there be any practical benefit or othewise to believing in this higher power, other than to draw inspiration from, given that there may perhaps be other more tangible sources of inspiration?

robindch

Wicknight wrote: »

Humans have a natural tendency to view in nature human like agents.

Yes, but it's more subtle than that, and more interestingly universal too.

In broad terms, the senses appear to feed into two basic cognitive apparatuses within the brains of many organisms. The first is physics-based and deals with questions like "Is it safe to dangle from this very thin branch?". The other is intention-based or theory-of-mind-based, and it assumes that other objects in the universe are goal-seeking objects, similar to the organism itself. This latter system deals with questions like "Should I take that child's ice-cream, given that the large, hairy father is close by?"

Limit the limited intention-processing ability and you get autism. Expand it unnecessarily, and you get people who have a hard time thinking about anything other than other people's intentions, usually grimly, hence paranoia. But if the brain's doesn't allocate object-processing very accurately, and the intention-processing apparatus starts processing things that should be processed by the physics-processing apparatus, then you get people thinking that the trees, mountains, rain-clouds etc have intentions (codified as "spirits") and hey-presto, you've got the beginnings of religion!

Intentional processing has been observed in many species - birds, dolphins, mammals etc.

DeVore

For me, if there is a higher power, its effects seem to be unobservable with our current scientific tools. If this higher power doesnt impinge on our world then it is irrelevant and unobservable and not very interesting or important to us here on Earth. So the only interesting line would be that it DOES impact on our world but in a way we dont understand or cant observe at the moment.

The only area in which that sort of impact could exist and not be observable and quantifiable by us, is in quantum mechanics. Specifically areas like quantum uncertainty and particle wave duality which appear to draw a veil over the deeper workings of the universe. In particular things like entangled pairs exhibit very curious behaviour which does not completely fit with standard model physics and indeed much of QM is very weird indeed. (look into the double slit experiment to see a case of where the universe simply wriggles out of a Gotcha set up )

So, for me, if there is a higher power of any description, then God does play dice with the universe, and he throws them where no one can see . The devil, it seems, really is in the detail.

DeV.

Joe1919

mangaroosh wrote: »

Just for the sake of playing devils advocate, if we assume that there is such a higher power, what would it mean in practical terms? Would it be just as many christians believe in God, but might not truly understand what God is?

Would there be any practical benefit or othewise to believing in this higher power, other than to draw inspiration from, given that there may perhaps be other more tangible sources of inspiration?

I suppose we have become too reliant on material goods, which are often unnecessary and only have symbolic or 'status' value. A move back to some type of 'spiritualism' may be good. It may especially be useful in the future if our standards of living continue to drop.

One of the effects of elevating nature to a 'higher power' is a tendency to be more accepting of what nature throws at you. There may be a good side to this in terms of personal happiness but on the other hand it may make some people too passive and accepting of the undesirable things of nature.

It has also been argued that most of our happiness comes not from our 'selves' but with our relationship with the world and with others.

Thinking in terms of a 'higher power' may reduce the subjective 'self-centered' way we view ourselves and increase our self-esteem. (by accepting that we are part of a greater cosmos). This may seem paradoxial but we are often more happier when we take our minds off ourselves and are totally absorbed in something external to ourselves. We lose the 'self' so to speak. It may also make us more objective in how we judge ourselves and less at the mercy of the perceived judgements of others.

We can just relax and get on with life. We may be nothing special. We just live the moment. Perhaps we have come just from Nature and will go back to Nature in the end.

strobe

Joe1919 wrote: »

We can just relax and get on with life. We may be nothing special. We just live the moment.

But that is perfectly possible without using phrases like "higher power" and "spiritualism". I still can't really understand why you seem to insist on using them to describe something as simple as living in the moment and having an affinity for the world around you. It's unnecessary and not very usefull to speak in mystical terms.

Joe1919

strobe wrote: »

But that is perfectly possible without using phrases like "higher power" and "spiritualism". I still can't really understand why you seem to insist on using them to describe something as simple as living in the moment and having an affinity for the world around you. It's unnecessary and not very usefull to speak in mystical terms.

I agree with some of what you are saying. I am not saying one has to use these terms. What I am thinking is that there may be no necessary contradiction with athiesm in using these terms and language. Furthermore, I am suggesting that some people may get some benefit from thinking this way.
To go back to Dawkins and his insistance that Pantheism may be 'sexed up atheism', perhaps people do get some advantage from 'sexing up' their beliefs.
Alcoholics Anonymous seems to claim it works for them.

goingpostal

Joe1919 wrote: »

I agree with some of what you are saying. I am not saying one has to use these terms. What I am thinking is that there may be no necessary contradiction with athiesm in using these terms and language. Furthermore, I am suggesting that some people may get some benefit from thinking this way.
To go back to Dawkins and his insistance that Pantheism may be 'sexed up atheism', perhaps people do get some advantage from 'sexing up' their beliefs.
Alcoholics Anonymous seems to claim it works for them.

People can and do get consolation and inspiration from all sorts of beliefs. This says nothing about the truth of these beliefs nor can it be construed as objective proof of a higher powers existence. If this Higher Power is the universe, then who or what created this Higher Power? An answer to this question must be at least as complex as the universe. Infinite regress, that way lies.

Truley

mangaroosh wrote: »

Just for the sake of playing devils advocate, if we assume that there is such a higher power, what would it mean in practical terms? Would it be just as many christians believe in God, but might not truly understand what God is?

Would there be any practical benefit or othewise to believing in this higher power, other than to draw inspiration from, given that there may perhaps be other more tangible sources of inspiration?

Obviously I can only draw from my own interpretation of higher power* As a practical outlook it has made me more receptive to ideas and information and empathic in my views. Less judgemental and far less conceited in how I would have previously looked at the world. That's my practical experience anyway.

Higher power = that what influences us but we do not fully understand.

Joe1919 wrote: »

One of the effects of elevating nature to a 'higher power' is a tendency to be more accepting of what nature throws at you. There may be a good side to this in terms of personal happiness but on the other hand it may make some people too passive and accepting of the undesirable things of nature.

It has also been argued that most of our happiness comes not from our 'selves' but with our relationship with the world and with others.

Thinking in terms of a 'higher power' may reduce the subjective 'self-centered' way we view ourselves and increase our self-esteem. (by accepting that we are part of a greater cosmos). This may seem paradoxial but we are often more happier when we take our minds off ourselves and are totally absorbed in something external to ourselves. We lose the 'self' so to speak. It may also make us more objective in how we judge ourselves and less at the mercy of the perceived judgements of others.

Ah good point, and something that I've mulled over before. While I do think that opening oneself to 'higher powers' and the wider world/consciousness/ whatever can be inspiring and educational. I don't think that it should be done at the expense of your own personal consciousness. At the end of the day your ego is what gives you perspective and good judgement, and is essential to maintaining a balanced mental health. Think of it as a sort of secure place from which you 'look out.' That's why I have always been incredibly skeptical of (oh so common) spiritual practices and meditations that seem to involve coming 'out of yourself.' Also people who try to achieve this with drugs and alcohol, I think that sort of idea is more damaging than beneficial.

Joe1919

Truley wrote: »

Ah good point, and something that I've mulled over before. While I do think that opening oneself to 'higher powers' and the wider world/consciousness/ whatever can be inspiring and educational. I don't think that it should be done at the expense of your own personal consciousness. At the end of the day your ego is what gives you perspective and good judgement, and is essential to maintaining a balanced mental health. Think of it as a sort of secure place from which you 'look out.' That's why I have always been incredibly skeptical of (oh so common) spiritual practices and meditations that seem to involve coming 'out of yourself.' Also people who try to achieve this with drugs and alcohol, I think that sort of idea is more damaging than beneficial.

Here is my take on this. (tell me where its crap.).

It is often argued that there are two types of consciousness/awareness.
In the first type, one is just directly aware of the object of consciousness.
In the second type, often called reflective awareness, one is also aware of the 'self' been aware of the object. i.e. one is aware of ones awareness. In this second type of awareness (reflective), one is very much conscious of the 'self' as part of the experience. It is though that this second type of reflective awareness is more complex and may not be present in less intelligent creatures. This type may also be more vurnable to the stupefying effects of drugs and alcohol.

It may be this second type of awareness that causes problems with people with low self esteem or extreme shyness. For example, if the person with low self esteem has to talk to somebody of importance, they will focus all their attention (reflectively) on 'themselves' talking to the other person whereas the confident person will focus on the other person and what they have to say.

Of course there are ways of reducing this 'reflective' awareness. e.g. Alcohol, and this seems to help take attention of ourselves. Another way out of this predicament is to 'hand over' responsibility for the 'self' to someone else or something else.

I suppose this is where the 'Higher Power' comes in. If we can take the responsibility for our predicament off 'ourselves' and put in onto something else, then there is a load of the mind. This is also where determinism comes in. If we accept that we are just humble creatures, determined by the influences of the higher power of nature (or gods will or even the stars), then great, a load off the mind. We can accept everything about ourselves except those things that we have present control over. Hence the necessity to know what we can and cannot change etc. as in the serenity prayer.

Joe1919

Truley wrote: »

Ah good point, and something that I've mulled over before. While I do think that opening oneself to 'higher powers' and the wider world/consciousness/ whatever can be inspiring and educational. I don't think that it should be done at the expense of your own personal consciousness. At the end of the day your ego is what gives you perspective and good judgement, and is essential to maintaining a balanced mental health. Think of it as a sort of secure place from which you 'look out.' That's why I have always been incredibly skeptical of (oh so common) spiritual practices and meditations that seem to involve coming 'out of yourself.' Also people who try to achieve this with drugs and alcohol, I think that sort of idea is more damaging than beneficial.

Here is my take on this. (tell me where its crap.).

It is often argued that there are two types of consciousness/awareness.
In the first type, one is just directly aware of the object of consciousness.
In the second type, often called reflective awareness, one is also aware of the 'self' been aware of the object. i.e. one is aware of ones own awareness. In this second type of awareness (reflective), one is very much conscious of the 'self' as part of the experience. It is thought that this second type of reflective awareness is more complex and may not be present in less intelligent creatures. It is this reflective consciousness where we feel the most. This type may also be more vurnable to the stupefying effects of drugs and alcohol.

It may be this second type of awareness that causes suffering and problems with people with low self esteem or extreme shyness. For example, if the person with low self esteem has to talk to somebody of importance, they will focus all their attention (reflectively) on 'themselves' talking to the other person ( and on their awareness of the other persons been aware of them) whereas the confident person will just focus on the other person and what they have to say.

Of course there are ways of reducing this 'reflective' awareness. e.g. Alcohol, and this seems to help take attention off ourselves. Another way out of this predicament is to 'hand over' responsibility for the 'self' to someone else or something else.

I suppose this is where the 'Higher Power' comes in. If we can take the responsibility for our predicament off 'ourselves' and put in onto something else, then there is a load of the mind. This is also where determinism comes in. If we accept that we are just humble creatures, determined by the influences of the higher power of nature (or god ), then great, a load off the mind. We can accept everything about ourselves except those things that we have present control over. Hence the necessity to know what we can and cannot change etc. as in the serenity prayer.

mehfesto

"Evolution and science explain the how, but they can't explain the why".

Powerful stuff that.
And it were Stan from South Park

sonicthebadger*

Joe1919 wrote: »

I suppose we have become too reliant on material goods, which are often unnecessary and only have symbolic or 'status' value. A move back to some type of 'spiritualism' may be good. It may especially be useful in the future if our standards of living continue to drop.

...

Hooooooo! Back her up there a small bit Joe... I can't say I agree that standards of living have dropped over either a short or long term view. I think the standards of living in most parts of the world have improved or at worst remained unchanged.

I have to say I think a move to 'spiritualism' is a move to, "let's hope really hard someone with more power than us can fix our problems for us".

Ush1

mehfesto wrote: »

"Evolution and science explain the how, but they can't explain the why".

Powerful stuff that.
And it were Stan from South Park

Yeah, I wonder where religion fits in so?

Joe1919

sonicthebadger* wrote: »

Hooooooo! Back her up there a small bit Joe... I can't say I agree that standards of living have dropped over either a short or long term view. I think the standards of living in most parts of the world have improved or at worst remained unchanged.

I have to say I think a move to 'spiritualism' is a move to, "let's hope really hard someone with more power than us can fix our problems for us".

'It may especially be useful in the future if our standards of living continue to drop.'
Did you not notice I used the word ' if '.

Anyhow, I will back up my opinion of possible lower future standards of living with the Finincial Times and use John Maynard Keynes and Akerlof & Shiller (Noble Economists) to try to persuade you of the importance of animal 'spirits' in economics.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/1a8a5cb2-9ab2-11df-87e6-00144feab49a.html
http://www.google.ie/url?q=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_spirits_(Keynes)&sa=U&ei=kedWTMSZH4KQjAfDjuDCBA&ved=0CA8QFjAB&usg=AFQjCNGvUHnC3UkxAGKKqeXHPYttjcWOBg
http://press.princeton.edu/titles/8967.html

the_syco

I believe in a "higher power", but it includes aliens creating life on our planet for sh|ts and giggles, in the same way how human scientists would create basic life to see can they do it.

sonicthebadger*

Joe1919 wrote: »

'It may especially be useful in the future if our standards of living continue to drop.'
Did you not notice I used the word ' if '.

Anyhow, I will back up my opinion of possible lower future standards of living with the Finincial Times and use John Maynard Keynes and Akerlof & Shiller (Noble Economists) to try to persuade you of the importance of animal 'spirits' in economics.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/1a8a5cb2-9ab2-11df-87e6-00144feab49a.html
http://www.google.ie/url?q=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_spirits_(Keynes)&sa=U&ei=kedWTMSZH4KQjAfDjuDCBA&ved=0CA8QFjAB&usg=AFQjCNGvUHnC3UkxAGKKqeXHPYttjcWOBg
http://press.princeton.edu/titles/8967.html

But what you have referenced there says that psychology plays a bigger role in economics than people would usually imagine. I doesn't say that standards of living will be lower. I would agree that banks are like drug pushers though and keeping out of debt is a good thing.

ColmDawson

the_syco wrote: »

I believe in a "higher power"

Why?

Joe1919

sonicthebadger* wrote: »

But what you have referenced there says that psychology plays a bigger role in economics than people would usually imagine. I doesn't say that standards of living will be lower. I would agree that banks are like drug pushers though and keeping out of debt is a good thing.

No one can really make 100% accurate economic predictions. My old econometrics teacher use to claim that econometrics was about making good guesses. As well as that, the human 'spirit' or mood of the people is such a huge factor.
I suppose I am trying to say that atheists need to get away from 'simple atheism' that does nothing but bash theism and get atheists a bad name. Famous atheists (such as Marx) despised this negativity.
http://books.google.ie/books?id=6VrfmJOEzZsC&pg=PA336&dq=marx+simple+atheism&hl=en&ei=dFxXTMWOFJ-isQaUioTiAQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCoQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=marx%20simple%20atheism&f=false

We need to move on and understand that there are 'invisible' and psychological and often what appears as irrational forces that need to be dealt with.
You can't spend the rest of your life bashing theism. You have to accept that words and phrases like 'spiritual' and 'higher power' can be applied to the 'natural' as well as the 'supernatural' and that the atheist has as much claim to these ideas as the theist has.

ColmDawson

Joe1919 wrote: »

You have to accept that words and phrases like 'spiritual' and 'higher power' can be applied to the 'natural' as well as the 'supernatural' and that the atheist has as much claim to these ideas as the theist has.

Is it ok if we also point out that those words are nebulous and useless?

Joe1919

ColmDawson wrote: »

Is it ok if we also point out that those words are nebulous and useless?

I disagree. We often talk of 'team spirit' and how things like music lifts our 'spirits'. The Iceland volcano that was able to screw up European Airlines and recent floods had a humbling effect on many people and can lead to a recognition that we are all at the mercy of the 'higher power' of Nature.
These words dont so much express anything objective but do help communicate and express how we feel.

ColmDawson

Joe1919 wrote: »

I disagree. We often talk of 'team spirit' and how things like music lifts our 'spirits'. The Iceland volcano that was able to screw up European Airlines and recent floods had a humbling effect on many people and can lead to a recognition that we are all at the mercy of the 'higher power' of Nature.
These words dont so much express anything objective but do help communicate and express how we feel.

Since when do people use the word 'spiritual' to describe team spirit? It's a word that people use when they want to refer lazily and vaguely to some sort of intangible personal quality.
Eyjafjallajökull's eruption caused lots of inconvenience and expense and delay and maybe some people who didn't already know realised that nature can sometimes throw a spanner in the works. I fail to see why any of those things needs to be put in a box marked 'spiritual'. I also think that the term 'higher power' has connotations of sentience and is vague and misleading.

Joe1919

ColmDawson wrote: »

....... I also think that the term 'higher power' has connotations of sentience and is vague and misleading.

What's actually wrong with 'connotations of sentience'. Are you saying that feelings are not important ?
Another famous atheist was David Hume and his famous quote is 'Reason is, and ought only to be the slave of the passions'. You don't have to agree with this but his idea is that logic and reason are just 'tools' that we use to satisfy our feelings and instincts.
http://www.google.ie/url?q=http://everything2.com/title/Reason%2Bis%25252C%2Band%2Bought%2Bonly%2Bto%2Bbe%2Bthe%2Bslave%2Bof%2Bthe%2Bpassions&sa=U&ei=9nBXTKm0JIa80gTArJ24Cw&ved=0CAoQFjAA&usg=AFQjCNEsez69Y8qJEmGXI5eRKosA7X7vuQ

PS I love the old atheists. They had more 'spirit' than theists.

Dades

Joe1919 wrote: »

PS I love the old atheists. They had more 'spirit' than theists.

And a better rep then "new atheists" from what I can see.

robindch

Dades wrote: »

And a better rep then "new atheists" from what I can see.

Oderint dum metuant?