My tryst with religion

I was raised in a family who are almost fanatically religous. I started questioning their beliefs and then was given 'Lobsang Rampa' books to read (heard of him?). My dad had the entire collection and for a great period of time I blindly believed in that authour. Around 2000, I picked up his books again and read all of them cover to cover-that's when I started seeing loopholes in his writings. Many things started falling apart when I carefully diagnosed them.

Slowly but surely I started to move in the opposite direction. I read comprehensively (on the net) debates and science facts that sounded rational enough to convince me. Then came the eternal questions-where did the universe come from (after all, there was something before the big bang, i.e., where did those material/gases come from?). There are only theories to explain these things. The theories offer a plausible explanation but they are still 'theories'.

I decided that the best name that describes me now- would be 'agnostic' witha strong bent towards atheisticism.

I feel a sort of anger towards all the religions-why are they hogwashing the public? and why are the masses so gullible? We have a rational thinking mind-why not use it? Do you all have this anger too?

 

People hogwash . . . does the hogwash concur with the originators of the religious order?

 

I am not sure what you mean by 'originators' but once there is a leader who is somewhat different from the rest and can perform 'miracles' or soothe troubled souls-people tend to put him on a pedestal and worship him. He/She was/is human after all, so why all this reverence? As for animists and pantheists-they seem even more ridiculous to me. To each his own, and I see nothing but people trying to find consolation in a higher power because it fires their imagination and give them something to remove the fear that we are alone.

As I said-I am not an atheist but an agnostic right now but I am turning more and more into an aetheist because theism doesn't make sense anymore. AND I feel angry that the masses are blindly following religion without really using their analytical abilities.

 

Religious experiences are hardwired into the brain. It's hard to fault people for believing in something they feel to be true. And I suspect that for anything to be hardwired into the brain there must be something to it. The brain doesn't just evolve picking up and storing things that never existed. It has to be something that persists. A lot of us know it is going to keep on persisting no matter what science has to say on the matter, also. But I suspect that science will just keep getting weirder and weirder. Because the universe is a bizarre place.

 

Well take Buddha for example. He told his 'followers' that he was only human, and that anyone could do what he had done, be as he was. He even told them to question what he said, to never accept it at face value simply because he said it. The Buddha encouraged everyone to question his authority - he had no authority. He had found a way, it may work . . . That was up to everyone to decide on their own.

So, I don't see anything wrong with that . . . I can see what you are saying clearer in Christianity.

The putting on a pedestal is often a mistake made by the followers.

Whatcha think is ridiculous about Pantheism?

We just want to run away from our fears? From being alone? Lonely? Maybe . . . A life after death, and a loving supreme being can alleviate that . . even if it was made up. . . Still, not every religion attempts to escape our inner demons. I'll just Buddhism one more time: Life is suffering. How to alleviate suffering? How may we find peace? By looking into ourselves, mindful awareness, facing ourselves as we are, and learning the cause of what makes us suffer . . . No worshipping anything or anyone will solve this.

So, it depends . . but I get ya. I do.

People tend to just follow blindly because it is easier . . . And it gives them a sense of security. They just don't have to think as much anymore. They wrap themselves up in this image they created . . . and live smug all their lives in bliss.

 

I am trying very hard to get away from what was 'hard wired' into my brain. You are right-it keeps on persisting-although I'm trying to get away from it very consciously.

Shaman-
I have studied Buddhism too but the answers to questions such as -'why is there suffering'- also seem unconvincing. Why should I escape the real world only to find solace in what is (to me) an imaginative and elusive 'peace'? Isn't this escaping from the world and renounce it -seem very selfish? Didn't Buddha himself abandon his moral duties of family just to find solace in delusionary beliefs?
Anyway-to each his own-you have the right to your beliefs as I have a right to question mine.

 

What is ridiculous about Pantheism?

The very definition of Pantheism assumes that there is 'God' (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pantheism/ ). It means that it is still believing in creationism as opposed to evolutionism-this is what I find ridiculous.

 

I guess God could or could not exist, and it's your choice to believe of course. Pantheism would say that God is responsible for evolution through the will of the species. God would also be the species. It's creationism and evolution in one. I myself believe God is everything.

I want to say that I do respect agnosticism, but not atheism. To totally rule out something which is possible is ridiculous to me.

I think I'm thinking scientifically, though. I hope I don't annoy you with gibber-jabber, but for instance...matter can't be created or destroyed. So we have a set of variables that are eternal. Given forever, doesn't it make sense that every scenario, given a limited set of information, will play out? So the matter that you physically are will, in time (a long time, but we've got forever), become you again. So you might die, but you wouldn't experience time in death, so you'll seem to come alive again. And that's not even considering that there might actually be a soul.

And God...could just be an entity that achieved time travel and stopped the aging process. If he chose never to kill himself, he could exist everywhere at all times. He would accumulate infinite information and knowledge. And other such nonsense that is the product of an overactive imagination without which I am nothing.

 

Buddhism says: There is suffering because there is desire. Why do we desire? When can we be at peace? When we are at peace inside. . . One does not need to renounce everything.

Guatama left his family in seek to discover this . . . Not to find solace, but to find out. He had to reject everything, even himself - he went through a few years of wandering from school of thought to school of thought, one spirituality to the next . . . You didn't absolutely need to abandon your family. I don't necessarily agree with that either, but leaving his family was not something he decided upon after he discovered the 'noble eight-fold path'. It was before, when he merely wanted to find some peace and truth, and release from suffering. Buddhism is also applied to the 'layman'. Just for some info.

Guatama went out into the world to discuss and teach out of compassion and empathy. He was about to just sit alone as a hermit for the rest of his days, but found this indeed would be selfish, and so he set out.

I've recently been reading a book about Buddha, which is why I found all of this out, and why I figured it'd be best to clear misunderstandings up about Buddhism - at least, the way it started.

I suggest you check out Jiddu Krishnamurti . . .

"I maintain that truth is a pathless land, and you cannot approach it by any path whatsoever, by any religion, by any sect. That is my point of view, and I adhere to that absolutely and unconditionally. Truth, being limitless, unconditioned, unapproachable by any path whatsoever, cannot be organized; nor should any organization be formed to lead or to coerce people along any particular path. If you first understand that, then you will see how impossible it is to organize a belief. A belief is purely an individual matter, and you cannot and must not organize it. If you do, it becomes dead, crystallized; it becomes a creed, a sect, a religion, to be imposed on others "

Sounds more up your ally, but this is just a guess!

It's great to question everything.

Okay, I'm gonna check out the link you posted. Thanks

 

"When we are at peace inside" -to reiterate my question-what do you mean by peace? If it means that you leave all the eternally unanswered questions (e.g.- these questions - http://www.sciencemag.org/sciext/125th/ ) to some elusive being called God-aren't we just blindfolding our brains and not using our analytical abilities? I have yet to get a plausible answer that would justify such questions. Agreed-scientists also are still grappling with such questions but at least they are not blindly attributing all phenomena to an elusive 'God'.

Just my two cents

 

yeah, I think Buddhist apologists really might want to start taking a look at her question on this.
I suppose if you find a way to stop caring about anything then maybe you do find it very peaceful and get lots of insight into that crazy world and 'all those other people' going on outside your shut-down emotional state.

One of the problems I have with Buddhism (and it relates here) is that its all good and well for a separate individual if he or she can train themselves into a state of complete and utter disregard for the physical realm.
OK.
Great, Im sure that is fine and all.
However, meanwhile there IS a real physical dimension going on and baby needs milk, people need to work the fields and actually yes - someone does need to clean the place up and do the dishes.

You can honestly see how it came to be that only unmarried men with the benefit of public funding can attain enlightenment.
The guy down in the village keeping the bloody monastery from falling apart, starving to death or doing things like repopulating the planet - I bet he doesnt think 'separating himself from all cares' is gonna go over well with his wife.
Bet she has something to say about that.

 

belief needs to be a feeling stronger than imagination. if a person has never become acquainted with a particular shade of yellow, how can they "believe" such a color exists. possibilities by definition have yet to come into existence so how can something that does not yet exist be believed?

 

While it seems that belief should be "stronger" than imagination, a person can conceive of a shade of yellow he has never seen before. If you imagine the gradient for yellow with one very small are missing, you can fill in the space with the appropriate colour. Hume said the same thing. I suppose he strays a little from strict empiricism in that respect, but I always believed him to be right just because his solution seems right intuitively. After all, I'm sure there are many colours I know of but have never seen. Unless I'm completely missing something...

That's not true. Counterexample: "It is possible that it rained on December 6, 1511 AD, but I do not know for sure."

"Exist" itself is a confusing word for many reasons. One is that it is possible for every-day macroscopic objects to exist at one time and not exist at another. But, of course, on a microscopic level matter is neither created nor destroyed. Nevertheless, we are mainly concerned with things that exist in the every-day world. Your question concerns the relationship between existence and belief/knowledge. I don't know exactly what that is, but I have a few ideas.

(1) Things that exist exist whether we believe in them or not, and things that don't exist don't exist no matter how hard we believe in them.

(2) Even if an event has not taken place yet. Like, "It will rain tomorrow," it is still either true or false.

(3) When talking about states of affairs, we are better off not even talking about existence. It only gets you into trouble. Besides, it seems more accurate to say that states of affairs "happen," not "exist."

 

Nammy,

You seem to be into science more and against religion...

Perhaps you can see there unity, how all the religions are pointing towards the truth of cosmic consciousness that is revealed in the sceince known as quantum mechanics.


Check out Self Aware Universe by Amit Goswami.

He is a phycist that supports the mystics in saying consciousness is supreme rather then matter.

 

You clearly dont' understand Buddhism very well. It's not about ignoring everyone else, or training yourself not to care, or seperating your self from anything. It's the exact opposite, it's about coming back to the here and now, it's about compassion and lovingkindness. Ever read up on Zen? here's a typical quote " 'master, what shall I do to attain enlightnment' 'haul water, wash dishes.' 'and what will I do when I AM enlightened?' 'haul water, wash dishes.' "

It's about a new mindset, a new APPROACH to reality, not about shutting yourself off from reality. Life goes on when you're enlightened, but you experience it much differently, and that difference is likely to become apparent in one's actions.

and Nammy, as far as Pantheism goes, well, I don't see what's so ridiculous about it. I'm a pantheist and also a die-hard evolutionist. You say "it assumes there's a god." But it says that god is the material realm that we can see and touch. Perhaps you'd say it'd make more sense to just say the universe is the universe, not that the universe is god, but I would counter, a purely material universe still leaves questions unanswered, stuff science can't touch. Like, what caused this empty, idiot, chaotic universe? Scientific materialism is the same thing as Creationism, just without the creator. Alan Watts compared God the creator to a potter who makes a pot. He is not the pot and is not made of clay, he is totally seperate from it and entirely unlike the clay in essence. Then, the Enlightenment comes along and we get rid of God the potter (which I can't say I disagree with), but still have this pot; same theory, but without the potter, we're left with the universe as Cosmic Idiot, a stupid machine. But where did it come from? What made it, and set it in motion?

The only sane conclusion is pantheism, where the spirit IS the material, like two sides of the same coin. You can only see one side at a time but they're both the same thing. Just like the wave/partical "duality" in quantum physics (it's not actually duality, but it seems that way since we can't see both sides of the coin at once).

If you stay with materialism you end up at nominalism, where everything is seen as the sum of its parts. But the truth is, blood in a test tube is not the same as blood in your veins, because it's behavior is different, and the surroundings are different. It ends up that you are not defined just by the sum of your parts, but what they do TOGETHER and the environment in which they do it. What is a human without air, water, plants, sunlight, the galaxy, or the universe? There is real, definite connection between all those things. We truly are one with the world. It ends up that you are your environment, and that environment is the whole universe.

 

Buddhism is not a new approach and dont get me wrong - Im all for being practicing and meditating themselves to a state of 'what im doing right now is what Im doing right now'.
This is essentially covered in Jesus teachings.
If I can sum up this sense of desire and attachment to things as 'Worry' then Jesus was all for ending that too - he just had a way of teaching it clearly and not making a religion out of it.
What you might call 'A state of Zen' is pretty much attained by being in a 'state of complete Faith' in the Christian concept of it all.

Buddha and Christ both can agree that we are essentially living with pain as a result of an inherited compulsions to desire.
Both agree that its not healthy and causes suffering and impedes us to be 'attached' to the 'world' in the sense of worrying about it.
Difference comes around this point...
This is where you want to be with Jesus in order TO DO things of consequence, daring, concern and which may certainly be exciting, terrifying and even painful.

Now you can go ahead and tell me that Buddhism does that but I dont see any such thing required.
Its about 'Me' and its about working my way to my own sense of wonder and satisfaction as much as possible.
Who gets enlightened - men who have the luxury of having others take away concerns. well great - I could probably experience tremendous inner-peace and enlightenment if I just accepted everything and could meditate on being.

I dunno, Buddhism does have a lot of the right basic ideas but ends up navel-gazing.
Great for the navel-gazer I suppose.

Anyways.. all its gotten you so far is a contempt for rational thinking.
Granted we all have to start somewhere.

 

Erasmus/ the objects of the imagination are felt weaker than perceptions. yeah, I was thinking about hume also when I said that. It is still a question of perception and imagination regarding belief. whether it rained in the past is a matter of fact, not a question of possibility, irrespective of whether you have knowledge of it or not. I would agree that existence is a loaded word and perhaps perception is better. that which is not perceived cannot give the sufficient strength needed for belief

 

This, I suppose, is just where we differ. Everyone who's studied Hume knows the difference between "relations of ideas" and "matters of fact." Everyone who's studied Kant knows about these too, except he called them "analytic a priori" and "synthetic a posteriori." Now, when you say "whether it rained in the past is a matter of fact, not a question of possibility, irrespective of whether you have knowledge of it or not," I take that as a metaphysical thesis, because it is clearly not an epistemic thesis. I'd like to remind you that matters of fact are, strictly speaking, contingent, and so they have a great deal to do with possibility, but I see your point. However, to view past events as rigid "matters of fact" and future events as "coming into existence" will have serious ramifations on your view of time. I'm not sure exactly what those consequences are, but they'll be significant.

I, on the other hand, don't view the analytic/synthetic distinction as a metaphysical tool. In fact, I see the distinction as mostly useless. Necessity and possibility, relations of ideas and matters of fact, analytic and synthetic, "must" and "could" are merely linguistic conventions we use to express degrees of belief, or how strong we feel about the truth of a proposition. It's certainly not a very exciting or interesting view, but who said the truth has to be interesting?

 

Certainly you must agree that you don't need Jesus to do things of consequence, daring, or concern. Christians are not the only movers and shakers of this world. And surely you've heard the phrase "God helps those who help themselves." One's Christian faith may give them confidence, but it's not the only source of it.

I also didn't mean to say Buddhism was a new approach. I meant the enlightened mind is a new approach to reality, new compared to the old egoic way most of us live in.

 

I think that was my point about Buddha as well.
Worry (let me use that catch all word) is bad for us.
Lust (can I boil it down to that word too) is unhelpful and ideally you would have it gone from you.

With Buddhism you are perfectly right to try for the elimation of these things and so it goes for everyone.
Jesus confirms this too.

However, you find a way to attain these in Buddhism and it sure comes off as the finale.

Jesus teachs the same things but then asks people use these to go forward into the struggle for the hearts and minds of people everywhere and for a purpose.

Buddhists are not the only movers and shakers.
But you can move and shake a lot of things that end up ruining shit and making the planet lesser for doing so.
Darwin for example

The phrase is not Biblical but Ive heard it.
Biblically, God helps those who cannot help themselves.

In the case of this topic - I would suggest that you may very well be able to cease worry and desire but you cannot sustain that in a real world lifestyle in which children need to be born, fed and villages kept alive.
Futher more - I suggest that even if you can find a temporary state of peace and tranquility - it will not provide you with enlightenment in and of itself.

I guess I just dont see it.
The most enlightened minds in Buddhism seem to arrive at the fundamental conclusions Jesus starts with.
Now thats not a bad thing either - but why go about it this round about way?

I suppose the difference seem to be that Buddha is telling us that if we concentrate hard enough we can clear our minds of worry and lust and cares.
Ok.
Then just believe you will 'train the sin nature' out of yourself.
Jesus on the other hand tells us that to admit defeat right away, abandon the effort entirely (lose your own life) and then fill that void with his own perfect enlightenment.
Now you carry on into all the real world battles and heartache and daily business - finding that 'zen like state' whereever you go.

Im not convinced Im making the distinction in the clearest way possible but I think you might see it?