On the subject of religion, why do you beleive

[Dreamer]

Please, don't be jerks in this topic and start yelling at each other over whos religion is right, or other things like that. All I want to do in this topic is for us to have a frank, calm, rational (or at least as rational as a discussdion over dieties and gods could be) debate in this topic.

Anyway, this topic is to ask those religious here, whether they be Chtristian, Jewish, Muslim, Hindu or Neopagan, what evidence do you have to beleive in whatever God you beleive in, and by that extent the supernatural. I am very intrested in this, mainly due to the fact that I am an agnostic whom considers science much mroe valid than religion, but wants so very bad to find somethign to beleive in, which is why I look forward to seeign your evidence for why you beleive. My worry is that all reigious beliefs are just tricks played on us by the universe, such as mistaking something with a rational explaination for a religious occurance, hallucinations from food and, proven by science as of late, magnetic feilds (Which might explain the Wolf Spirit Paraiah saw as a child). I really look forward to being proven wrong.

Happy philosophising!

[Wselfwulf]

I hate to be rude, but I don't think your call for rationality will be heeded. Sure it all starts off with some offhand references to real things but then it's either faith, or ad hominem's or some other logical fallacy...

[Berserker]

Dreamer, you are a person of science on a werewolf forum. I think we can start by trying to identify the spirituality you've created for yourself before we move on. If I'm wrong, so be it, but consider it a thought exercise.

First. Lets take a look at why you're drawn to werewolves. Don't start answering the question prematurely.

You know werewolves aren't real, i.e. they aren't flesh and blood. But do you look at the werewolf and see DNA, the scientific plausibility of combining the genetic material of wolf and man, and its ramifications on scientific study as a whole? If so, that would certainly be a very grounded, very logical approach to a mythic figure.

But if that's the case... why wolf, and why man?

Or do you look at the werewolf and see a representation of something? A symbol of man's return to nature perhaps? A symbol of natural freedom? A symbol of primal, unleashed passion? Even a symbol of violence and fury, red in tooth and claw?

Forget about werewolves for a second, and focus on real wolves and real nature.

You are alone on a hike. It's morning. A cold wind chills you from the north, but the sun is rising above the mountains. And there, just ahead, motionless, a white wolf stares at you from across a snowfield. Snowcapped mountains tower in the distance, and the forest stretches far beyond.

Standing there witnessing this, what do you think, what do you feel?

Do you think about the interconnection of ecosystems, the food chain, the reflection of light against the surface of the snow, the natural phenomenon of coniferous versus deciduous vegetation?

Or do you think about untamed beauty, natural majesty, the face of the mountains projecting their might, the woods taunting you with their mystery, and the wolf... as the essence of it all?

Now tell me this. Which feeling makes your heart pound? Which makes you feel better about being alive?

This is a feeling free from the dominance of observable fact. There's no scientific test for why you felt beauty and majesty. This is what supernatural really means, but if you felt it, then were you deceived by your own senses? Of course not. Just the opposite: it's the purity of sense itself, that feeling of being alive. If one were to believe in only one thing, would it not be in the power of this feeling to improve one's existence?

Come to this realization, and you can see that your werewolf is just as real as the wolf in the snow: they are both truths, both symbols of greater ideals, both defying pure logic for the sake of something metaphysical. Something that ties it all together, science and spirituality under the same umbrella. Then, you can see that there's no need to look for evidence of this greater thing, because it exists so much as you felt it.

If one starts to seek out that understanding more often, even to the point of finding it in the mundane, even to the point where events start to become ONLY symbolic, including death itself... well... there's your religion. "Nirvana," if you will.

[Dreamer]

I really want to beleive you Bezerker. It's just that, I'm worried that, by beleiving, I'm just fooling myself, blinding myself to reality. The reality beign that belief in gods and the supernatural is just, allong with the influence of halucinogens; magnetic feilds; and mistakes in human perception, a genetically-encoded lie, evolved to "enhance social cohesion" and made obsolete with the creation of civilization (And dangerous with the more recent development of religious warfare), but still there, leaving us graspign for something greater when there is really nothing. Nothing but a cold, godless, logical universe that could destroy us at any minute and leave us dead in the dark void of nonexitence.

Depressing isn't it.

And on the subject of my beliefs about god, I beleive that, if there is a god, he is far stranger and more powerful than any religion can possibly imagine.

[Berserker]

I've mentioned nothing intangible. I am talking about reality, Dreamer. The reality of beauty, the reality of grandeur, the reality of passion itself. Do you find nothing beautiful? Do you have no passion? Ask yourself my questions again and read more carefully.

[Dreamer]

So your saying that one's religion should come from one's sense of wonder and awe at the world? Yeah, I can get behidn that. That's probably why I like fantasy and sci-fi much more than realistic works.

But what about observable evidence of the supernatural (Such as ghoset/spirit sightings, messages from god(s), magical phenomena). Do you think that part's realy (In an objective, scientifically viable sense) or is it just humans being tricked by their senses or environmental triggers (Such as halucinogens or magnetic fields)

[Berserker]

If a man sees a burning bush, and believes that god is speaking to him, then regardless of whether the god was real, the bush was real, or neither, the symbolism of the event remains. So I have a hard time answering your question. It just... has no real bearing on my spiritual outlook.

[Sunbane]

Dreamer, I am another agnostic (and may I add, another dreamer).

I've have the same inner conflict over faith and spirituality. On one hand; I want to believe. No, wait! It's more like...I want to rest assured in the knowledge that there is a reason behind it all. Even if there is no afterlife (a thought which does NOT appeal to me), I wish for a reason - a purpose. But...what is the use of believing if we can't be sure what we believe in is real? Doubt is the antithesis to belief, and to me, they can't co-exist - because why would you pray to a god whose existance you're doubting? We can't just "pick a religion" and pretend it's the truth. This the ancient question of the meaning of life.

(We all know the answer is 42. )

After going through the loops time and time again, I always come back to agnosticism. There is no way for me to discern which religion/philosophy/delirium is closest to "the truth", and the only way for me to have peace of mind, is to accept the fact that I can't know, and probably never will know (at least in this lifetime).

I think we will have a hard time finding common grounds with the believers to stand on. A believer can base his/her whole faith in a feeling, or tradition, or wishful thinking, and be fully comfortable with that. In a way, I envy the believers because of this.

[Berserker]

I'm not saying to stop asking questions. Just that some questions are like vampires, sucking at your spiritual energy until you're weak. That's why I stress finding one's own path towards understanding based on feeling and intuition, rather than objective knowledge; gravitate more towards what you've felt and experienced to be true. Treat events as symbols from which understanding can be inferred (even if that understanding is simplistic.)

If you guys want populist demonstrations of some of these concepts, watch The Fountain and Pan's Labyrinth.

[Terastas]

I'm sort of somewhere in between agnosticism and neopaganism in that, while I do believe in the existence of supernatural forces, I make no claim to an understanding of them.

Nor will I ever attempt to. Spiritualism and morality are pretty simplistic issues which most people can agree on; it's when people get wrapped up in the names, presentation etc. that the bloodshed usually commences; when "thou shalt not kill" becomes "thou shalt only kill sinners and nonbelievers." Spiritualism is a beautiful thing, but when people stop asking questions and thinking for themselves and just think and do exactly as they are told, that's when the dark side of religion rears its ugly head.

So for the record, I am religious, but I don't belong to any religion. Thank you all for respecting that.

[Wselfwulf]

Pan's Labyrinth was quality. Think though, amidst the fantasy how it let the violence of reality invade abruptly every now and then. One thing I hear often is that 'there is no scientific explanation for emotion' or 'our response to art'. Studying psych, I am aware this is not really the case. I don't understand why people resist the fact that emotion is a chemical phenomena, a feeling awe (or anything) at particular things is an either innate or learned response. At some highly complex levels, for example art, it can be a learned symbolic pairing, vicarious learning (a behavioural response aquired by observing another), or a secondary drive that humans, with their strange desires, have applied. Perhaps think of it this way. There is never 'no reason' we might respond to something in a certain way. And if we look at the cause grounded in reason, it is always explicable by nature. Counterexamples?

And now that I look back, Dreamer was right on about how people's minds can fool their owners. Our lecturers do it to us routinely, bloody hell! The only thing they couldn't pull on me was the compton effect, but I along with every other student did things like create false memories (with high confidence in their existence) or get 'primed' to say certain words in response to a question (that last one was done within an hour). It is constantly demonstrated that we cannot trust our beleifs of what our motives and reality is. Like in ink blot tests, we see (or hear) patterns in randomness, and see what we think we should see. I myself have had experiences, pretty vivid experiences that might convince someone of the supernatural, but they are all really typical and expected kinds of things for who I am. Certainly explicable.

[RedEye]

So far we're being reasoned and nice. I don't think I have to point out you are juggling burning porcupines here. It's easy to get burned or stuck.

Stay nice and I'll stay asleep. Get nasty and...well, you know...

[Dreamer]

Pan's Labyrinth was quality. Think though, amidst the fantasy how it let the violence of reality invade abruptly every now and then. One thing I hear often is that 'there is no scientific explanation for emotion' or 'our response to art'. Studying psych, I am aware this is not really the case. I don't understand why people resist the fact that emotion is a chemical phenomena, a feeling awe (or anything) at particular things is an either innate or learned response. At some highly complex levels, for example art, it can be a learned symbolic pairing, vicarious learning (a behavioural response aquired by observing another), or a secondary drive that humans, with their strange desires, have applied. Perhaps think of it this way. There is never 'no reason' we might respond to something in a certain way. And if we look at the cause grounded in reason, it is always explicable by nature. Counterexamples?

And now that I look back, Dreamer was right on about how people's minds can fool their owners. Our lecturers do it to us routinely, bloody hell! The only thing they couldn't pull on me was the compton effect, but I along with every other student did things like create false memories (with high confidence in their existence) or get 'primed' to say certain words in response to a question (that last one was done within an hour). It is constantly demonstrated that we cannot trust our beleifs of what our motives and reality is. Like in ink blot tests, we see (or hear) patterns in randomness, and see what we think we should see. I myself have had experiences, pretty vivid experiences that might convince someone of the supernatural, but they are all really typical and expected kinds of things for who I am. Certainly explicable.

You summed up the reasons for my religious angst pretty well there buddy. Dear god, I just wish there was some provable sign that we could see, some way to know if there is taht greater truth. But the world does not work that way. :Sigh:

I f*&%*#@ hate rationalism as a philosophy be cause it's so damn depressing and mundane. And it it seems to be the one that's most probably right. :Sigh again:

[Midnight]

First. Lets take a look at why you're drawn to werewolves. Don't start answering the question prematurely.

You know werewolves aren't real, i.e. they aren't flesh and blood. But do you look at the werewolf and see DNA, the scientific plausibility of combining the genetic material of wolf and man, and its ramifications on scientific study as a whole? If so, that would certainly be a very grounded, very logical approach to a mythic figure.

But if that's the case... why wolf, and why man?

Or do you look at the werewolf and see a representation of something? A symbol of man's return to nature perhaps? A symbol of natural freedom? A symbol of primal, unleashed passion? Even a symbol of violence and fury, red in tooth and claw?

Forget about werewolves for a second, and focus on real wolves and real nature.

That's a really good set of questions you've asked there. I ended up doing some serious thinking about the subject a few years back after a friend (who's not particularly interested in werewolves but is definitely interested in mythology and storytelling) asked me whether I was particularly interested in wolf-shifters or just shifters in general. As I've just been working through it myself I haven't been going particularly quickly (as of now I'm still at the "focus on real wolves" stage).

Although with me being about as non religious as one can get, I've just come to the conclusion: yes, I do have a particular interest in werewolves that seems to be connected with a particular interest in wolves. If I'd been of the right personality type to think that sort of way I might have thought that there was something spiritual or totemic about it, but as it is I've just accepted that I have those interests, and moved on to the next thing to think about.

[Wselfwulf]

Dreamer, a friend of mine, having a past of depression, said something along the lines of 'I wish I could force myself to believe. To let go of any reason that would stop me from believing in god so that I could feel...like...secure' and from then on they got a bit waffly about wanting meaning and being so convinced and content. As dubious as wishing ignorance on oneself is, I tried to look at his point of view. Yes, it is depressing and mechanical, we have nothing to look forward to and nothing looking after us. Why not wish for a false hope? Because in my eyes, no perpetuation of existence, no rules and no rewards - no 'hope' that is ever offered by the supernatual - are anything more than arbitrary, often death-based insecurities. To follow any guidline other than rationalism, once confronted with the absurd arbitrariness of one goal over another, is time wasted. It is empowering, as I see it.


And by no means should rationalism be the sole burner of warm fuzzy blankets. Sartre does it with some pretty hardline phenomenology (I think I sort of channeled him talking about arbitrariness of choice, but he comes to different, more developed conclusions). I may not defend rationalism with 'feel-good' points but it's pragmatism leaves us free to choose our own destiny. Mysticism and religion essentially says we are not the summation of our existance, nor the masters of it.

[vrikasatma]

[Gathering thoughts]

I run into a lot of atheists in my circles. Some have just rejected religion; they are no less spiritual, it's just more focused inward. Some are outright asses, boasting proudly that there is no God, there is no meaning to life, no heaven, no hell, nothing after we die, we're just gone and you'll be better off if you just come to grips with it. And there's a sociopathic stripe who say that and end with a snide reference about "imaginary friends."

They may have a point. But as a person who has a personal, lifelong respect for the power of imagination, I say that even if it is all in our minds it is no less valid. Einstein himself said that imagination is more important than knowledge.

Even the mythologist Joseph Campbell held the "sentiment of awe" in the highest respect. Do owls exercise imagination? Do kangaroos? We have proof positive that elephants and the great apes do, and horses, cats and dogs seem to be getting an inkling of it, if only by osmosis.

I used to believe in a personal Deity. I believed that God, Gods and Goddesses were actual entities. Over the years I came into the realization that They existed as archetypes and held only as much power as I accorded to them.

I got my blood tested years and years ago. The finding was that I had an endorphin level in my bloodstream that was ten times normal, and I hadn't taken anything. Getting plenty of rest, not starving, not in any especial physical privation, completely straight and healthy. It was like I was naturally "high," endorphins being a powerful opiate-like biochemical. There was scientific proof as to why I was "sensitive" and why it was so easy for me to switch between default and "wholly other" realities.

Which came first, the chicken or the egg? Do you experience Ixstasis — "out of stasis" — Ecstasy — because you're in the presence of Divinity or do you experience the presence of a supernal because you're, as my hippie friends like to say, "enhanced"? With me, it was because of my hardwired, standing trance given the high level of endorphins. And why could I drive, if I was stoned out of my mind? Well, probably because I grew up that way, didn't know it, and my reflexes developed to compensate from that baseline. Anyway, I could "see spirits." Spirits, including divine avatars if not the Supernals Themselves.

So now you know why I sometimes switch back and forth between literal and subjective, default and metaphorical language. Not lying, not bullshitting, it's just that that's my reality. Gods and spirits are as much a part of my reality as the plush panther perched on the end of my bed and the rosemary growing out on my balcony. To me, it's not a question of faith.

In Werewolf game terms, I could be said to have "Pulse of the Invisible" hardwired and the Gauntlet is, for me, 3 or lower everywhere.

[Wselfwulf]

Personal experience is both the strongest argument for the supernatural and the least trustworthy. But anecdotal evidence for this never holds up in a lab. The mind plays tricks and over time layers these tricks on.

And I think you should review the sentence 'even if it is all in the mind it is no less valid'. I don't even think Husserl would agree with that.

[Kaebora]

I will keep this explained down to the very basic foundation of ALL religous beleifs...

Faith. To beleive in something beautiful without needing proof that it exists to some may seem naive, but to the beleiver, it is what makes life worth living. And according to religous texts, faith is the key to salvation. I'll leave it at that.

[vrikasatma]

[Wselfwulf]

I wholeheartedly agree, if I understand you correctly, that any thought goes and a 'tempered soul' knows when to cross the line between thought and action. I am sure this idea is critical in decision making.

It is interesting that you ask how babble becomes a poem like Casabianca or something. to explain language aquisition Skinner had a crack at explaining it but his theory didn't hold up. But look at Chompsky's old LAD or Pinker and derivative works and you'll see we know a lot about it, and plenty of it is developemental. Part is definately cognitive, but also there is a reliance on the physical mind to both be functioning, unimpeded and developed. But I'm fascinated when you say 'all' in your mind. What do you take of the question of objective physical objects? Or thoughts as the product of determinism? For the latter question, things may not come ultimately from the mind.

I do not think you should legally condemn someone for their words. Freedom of speech should be upheld, no matter the content. If what someone says causes malady, blame the listeners who acted upon it. If someone is harming society with words, fix their damages with words.

And the inspiration of gods and spirits is subjective. Personally, I hate a master archetype. Why the awe? Why respect only power? Divinity is something we ascribe to them, goodness is something we ascribe to them, greatness again is ascribed due to percieved power, our feelings of inferiority. When religion comes in, these feelings become like shackles. It was men who built the Notre Dame, not Gods. I could think of better things to inspire a great work. Like love or peace.

[Gevaudan]

It seems like this thread is steering its way towards the "Argument from Beauty", which has been argued and shown every which way, from Plato to St. Augustine to Richard Dawkins. From a theistic standpoint, it goes like this:

1. There's many ways to think that beauty can exist outside of material explanations.
2. Materialists say that nothing can exist outside of material manifestations and explanations.
3. Theists say that beauty is an integral part of God's nature, and therefore exists outside of material explanation.
4. Therefore, theism is a more plausible choice than materialism, assuming that the premise (#1) is true.

Don't just think that I paraphrased this from Wikipedia. Which I did. Give me a chance to show my input.

I believe that this argument is flawed, because beauty is relative. A decorative painting or a bright flower may seem lovely to some, but it may seem ugly to others, due to color, shape, personal interests, and any other number of details that come to mind. Why do you think we have art critics? This argument also does not account for the presence of ugliness in the world. The explanation for art or literature is that humans have free will, and they might have chosen to include things that may seem lovely to some, but ugly to others. Even so, there are almost universally accepted ugly things in nature, such as slugs or viruses, which do not fit into this explanation. If God is only beauty, how can ugliness also be manifest outside of material explanation? The only answer is that ugliness and beauty are only human applied qualities to something. Because we can't know the exact personal, subjective opinion of a supreme, all-knowing deity, the sense of "beauty" being discussed is only how humans decide to view things, not the will of the all-good "powers that be".

I am a Roman Catholic, if you haven't guessed from my theist perspective. I am also very reasoned, so I usually look at things not only from a religious explanation, but with a scientific, logical, methodical procedure. Materialism seems to me to be very narrow-minded (no offense), but only because there are certain times when the material aspect of something is not the particular issue at hand. However, I have to give materialists the nod in this argument.

[Berserker]

Actually, my "argument" was that we infer understanding of the universe from the symbolism of things and events, and that the passion for life we feel from this qualia has a kind of personal universality that seems superphenomenal and as a result, supernatural (given that we strive towards it but never fully grasp it.) I suppose this concept is more like Buddhism than anything else, although theism can certainly be derived from it in some form.

[Wselfwulf]

In any case that materialism cannot answer the issue at hand (like phenomenology) then no valid conclusions can be made about reality. I have serious doubts as to whether serious statements can be made. Neither Husserl, Heidegger or Merlou-Ponty changed my mind, despite the interesting insights they made. They just didn't get anywhere.

[Kaebora]

I'm suprised my last post has been overlooked. It really is that simple yall. In religion, "faith is salvation". Not, "prove it to be true then beleive".

[Sunbane]

But isn't by that definition, all faith = blind faith?