Absolutely not. They are saying that spitirual matters aren’t within the realm of our ability to describe them physically.
In what way? I’d wager that they’re completely different. “Belief in extraterrestrials or psychics” necessarily implies belief in something that can be scientifically proven. “Belief in Jesus or angels,” as has been addressed ad nauseum in other threads, cannot be proven scientifically. Can you be more specific in how these two “beliefs” are no different, and then say why such a belief is bad?
You take it as a given that theists err in their beliefs about how reality is constructed? Why? I could just as easially say that atheists are “people who desperately latch on to a strict interperetation of the world in a desperate attempt to avoid any kind of moral or abstract thought,” but doing so would be obviously incorrect.
Since when is the point of prayer to change God’s decision? I always thought of prayer as a form of spiritual meditation, and trying to discern God’s will, although I might be mistaken on that point.
Now that we have that cleared up, back ot the OP…
Coo’ by me.
In fact, many folks I know pray to God to give a loved one an “either-or” situation. “Either let him live, or if that isn’t your will, let him pass away without pain.” That’s the way it goes most often in the church that I attend.
i have come to the understanding that praying in a wish list form is alright. but when doing this you must sacrifice something. not like an animal sacrifice but something like, not eating a certain food you enjoy.
Soup, I’m not an atheist, I’m an agnostic. Iwant to see EVIDENCE. I don’t have any interest in someone else’s internal experiences, I want to know what they can PROVE. It is sophistic to compare so-called “religious” experience with individual experience of colors, etc. We know light and colors and vision are all verifiable by empirical evidence. Regardless of the individual experience, we KNOW absolutely the CAUSE of the experience. We know the workings of the eye, of light, of prisms. It is a universal and consistent experience. I don’t care how ecstatic or joyful people convince themselves they become through faith or prayer, the fact that they are joyful does not prove the existence of an all-powerful supernatural being. I like to practice Zen meditation. I like it because it simply a physical and mental discipline which requires no particular belief or dogma. There is no pretense in Zen that you are communicating with some giant fairy in the sky. I get the same peace and contentment from meditation that others claim they get from prayer. I believe that for some people, prayer makes them feel better, this does not mean, however, that GOD has anything to do with it. If that were so, then why does prayer “work” equally well for Christians, Muslims, Jews, Hindus, etc? It doesn’t seem to matter what you pray to, there is no difference in the pay-off whether you pray to Jesus, Shiva, Allah, or Satan. All “work” equally well.
What about when God chooses to ignore your “either/or” scenario and let somebody die a slow agonizing death? Is that person not spiritually worthy? Do children suffer painfully with leukemia because they deserve it? Isn’t God responsible for people being at death’s door to begin with?
To presume that God “intervenes” on behalf of even one person is an insult to the ones who don’t get special treatment. Do you actually think that God is watching Grandpa Dave dying of lung cancer, coughing and wheezing, suffering in agony. God is just watching and doing nothing, and then “oh wait a second, soup du jour just asked me to kill the old buzzard painlessly, what a good idea- ZAP” Grandpa Dave kicks the bucket. Do you think that your PRAYER is actually a deciding factor? Please.
BTW how come nobody has an answer to my Jesus qquestion? Why would JC pray to himself. Come on fundies, I’m sure there must be some stock explanation.
Jesus did not pray to himself. He prayed to God the Father. They’re both God, though.
[trinity in a nutshell] Think of an apple. The seeds, the flesh, and the skin are all seperate entities that, when put together, create what we describe as one apple. Yet, the apple would not be an apple without the skin, flesh, or seeds. It’s the same with God. What Christians deem the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, taken as a whole, constitute what one might call “God.” But, with any of the pieces missing, it wouldn’t be God at all. Jesus could pray to the Father because they’re not the same, just as the skin and the seeds aren’t the same. [/trinity in a nutshell]
On this point, I have no idea why innocent folk are sometimes condemned to suffer painfully. It makes no sense to me why a just God would allow such things to happen. The best I know how to react is to see myself as the agent through which God can decreace suffering in this world, and get to work on it. Suffering of the innocent, under any circumstances, is bad. And if I’ve learned anything through my years as a Christian, it’s that the most important thing for me to do is to do whatever I know how to love my neighbor.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but doesn’t Zen Buddhism have some sort of dogma as well? Four Noble Truths, Noble Eight-fold Path, Nirvana, Karma, and Reincarnation and such?
Your definition of the trinity doesn’t quite work, because each element of the trinity is supposed to be coequal and complete in itself, i.e. the “seeds,” “skin” and “flesh” are supposed to each be complete “apples” in and of themselves. Augustine of Hippo, in his book DE TRINITATE (supposedly the definitive word on the subject) states that no one aspect of the Trinity contains any attribute or quality that the other two don’t contain. Hence, Jesus would have to be omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent, in which case there is nothing to tell the “father,” nothing to ask, and nothing the father can do that the son cannot do. To say that Jesus wasn’t praying to “himself” but to the “father” (which is still Himself) strikes me as specious and sophistic.
I didn’t say I practiced Buddhism, I said I practiced Zen MEDITATION, which can easily be practiced independently of any religion. You asked some good questions though, and all of the doctrines you pointed to are accurate, so kudos.
Certain kinds of Buddhism do contain some dogmas, but there are many different kinds of Buddhism. The “magical” aspects of Tibetan Buddhism for instance do not have any relationship to Zen. As I said before, all of the Buddhist doctrines you mention are accurate. They are not, however, all rooted in supernatural beliefs. The “four noble truths” are philosophical propositions not otherworldy suppositions. Karma and reinarnation come to Buddhism from Hinduism, and indeed many Buddhists (not all) believe in these ideas. I do not. You have to understand, though, that Buddhism does not put the same emphasis on specific beliefs and/or faith that western religions do. Zen pretty much dismisses any focus on belief or dogma as a distraction and an obstacle to enlightenment. Zen Buddhism is nontheistic, and non-devotional. There is no WORSHIP as such. The focus is all on self-examination and self-discovery.
Let me ask you a question (a sincere one, I’m not trying to bait you) Do you believe that it matters WHO a person prays to? Does it have to be Jesus, (or God the Father) or can it be Krishna, or Allah (Really just the Arabic word for “God”) or how about Mary or the Saints? What do you think?
Wow, this thread has been busy over the weekend. Anyway, I did take some time to do a little homework. Diogenes from what I can find, your info appears more or less accurate. However, I don’t see where a tradition of arguing with God and even judging/condemning him is supported. Going back to Job, isn’t God’s message here, “don’t argue with me”?
BTW, just to let you know where I stand, I think God’s reply to Job that humans couldn’t possibly understand divine motives, is a bit of a cop out. If I were Job, I would have answered, “try me”.
kabbes brings up the freewill argument. If God’s will is freewill, supposedly for the purpose of judging us by our actions, then God’s failure to intervene in the Holocaust does NOT imply that the Nazis were doing God’s will. Rather the implication is that the Nazis will be judged (harshly, we hope) for exercising their own will. Of course, for this argument to hold up one must accept what I wrote in my first post to this thread:
One of the things people seem to forget about the Job story is that the book DOES explain God’s motives. He is trying to win a bet with Satan, nothing more. There is nothing particularly sublime or incomprehensible about this. I don’t believe that the old “don’t question God” interpretation is the only possible way to read Job. The author may be trying to illustrate that God can be capricious and vain; in other words that God can be WRONG. This is not unheard of in the OT. Didn’t God basically confess that he was wrong to flood the world in Genesis. Also the Bible doesattribute some human-like emotions to God from time to time, (e.g. “jealousy,” “anger”). God was not always seen as perfect.
It certainly does sound like the Devil is tempting God in Job, but I’m not sure that really qualifies as explaining Gods motives either. After all why should God feel the need to prove himself to the Devil, whom he supposedly also created.
God does say he will never flood the world again and puts his bow in the sky as a reminder (one might ask, what does an all powerful, all knowing, and perfect being need a reminder for?). However, I never read that as God admiting to a mistake. I’ll have to take another look at that chapter, it’s been a while. From memory, I can see where your interpretation comes from, but since I didn’t get that, I’ll have to revisit it.
I’ve actually been on your side of this conversation before. I based my argument for an imperfect God on the creation. The bible gives us two versions. In one, God is perfect and creates things by saying “let there be…” In the second version, God creates man from clay, then goes about trying to create a suitable companion. He brings each one to Man. Man names the animals of the world, but none are good enough, until ?God creates Woman from Mans rib. If you ask me, there are alot of animals out there, which means a lot of failed experiments.
I re-read Genesis, and while I think it implies that God had some remorse for the flood, you are correct in that It does not explicitly say that he was “wrong.” Part of my statement came from memories of sunday school lessons as a child which played up an interpretation that God was sorry for the flood. The two creation stories have been the subject of much debate. They also differ in the order of creation. One story has man created first, the other has the animals first. Textual and linguistic analysis reveals that there are probably two different oral traditions which were combined as one in the written text. As to arguing with God, Wiesel points firstly to the story of Jacob and the angel, a wrestling match won by Jacob. Afterwards, Jacob was called “Israel” meaning “One who has struggled with God.” So the very name of the Jewish people implies a conflicted relationship with the almighty. Wiesel also points to Abraham’s attempt to “bargain” with God about the destruction of Sodom. I don’t know exactly where to look for real information about the Jewish tradition of argument with God, but Wiesel’s work is full of it. Wiesel has told one story from his experience at Auschwitz which I think is illustrative of this tradition. A group of several old rabbis within the camp actually put God on “trial.” They actually held a real trial, with a prosecutor, a defense attorney, a judge and jury. They convicted God, in absentia, for allowing the holocaust to happen, and they sentenced him to death. As soon as the sentenced had been pronounced, the old rabbis commenced with their evening prayers as usual. This true story was the inspiration for Wiesel’s play “The Trial of God.”
Although the Bible discussion is interesting, I’m wondering if analysing mythologies to death–especially the topics that have caused a lot of unresolved arguments and conflict over the last few thousand years–will really lead anywhere. Anyway, on prayer working:
The above, like most Sufi or Sufi-esque tales, exists on multiple levels and offers more material on a number of related topics than you can shake a stick at. It explains why prayer works–but it doesn’t claim that prayer actually works in the literal or fundamentalist sense.
Once we look past Nasrudin’s deliberately foolish antics and words, message start to emerge. In the case of this story, I think the one of the morals is that ritual helps to keep the tigers of the mind at bay (or away entirely). Prayer then isn’t really about God, it’s about whoever is doing the praying. It’s reflection on and organization of the person’s fears, desires, concerns, etc.
Beyond that prayer doesn’t have much use (note the Nasrudin story’s amusing unfalsifiable hypothesis and circular reasoning on the presence of tigers in the area and why there are none). There have been a series of studies on prayer, a large number of them unreliable, that look at the question of whether intercessory prayer actually works. The answer is: there is zero evidence that it does. Although several researchers have reported positive results, in EVERY SINGLE case when the actual study is scrutinized problems appear as if from nowhere–from false data to leaky methodology to statistical massaging. That’s the kind of dishonesty or sloppiness that we have come to expect from people who are out to prove a certain point, rather than establish the truth whatever it may be, at any cost.
Note that, thanks to the idiocy and attention-deficiency of the average mass media (and their audiences), sensational claims like “Prayer Actually Works!” always get broadcast when they are made. They sell. A few weeks or months later, after someone has uncovered the flaws in the original claims and makes some debunking observations on the original study, does anyone follow up on the story? Of course not. We tend to hear an awful lot about the pseudoscientific side of the argument, probably because of the credulity, gullibility, and scientific illiteracy of the average person.
A good overview of the confabulation in the field of prayer research may be found here, along with several good links: http://www.skepdic.com/prayer.html
There is a very good observation about a third of the way down:
Sad, isn’t it?
On the topic of meditation and prayer: meditating or praying may not be as harmless or beneficial as many people think. In fact, it could be extremely dangerous, and might end up ruining your life:
Myself, when I’m feeling tired, stressed, or worn out, I go to bed early with a good book. There is no chance of self-deception in that, no risk of adverse side-effects, and sleep is still the number one relaxation technique there is. Excuse me if I snore while I enter the deepest part of my meditation…
Good post, Abe. Interesting links. I think the sufi story is a good illustration of the tautological nature of many religious arguments. The article on meditation is an eye-opener. The bit about the parietal lobe as it relates to the brain’s sense of the body’s physical boundaries are especially interesting since one of the more common results of “successful” meditation is a sensation of being “one” with the environment. (You feel like there’s no separation between your body and its immediate surroundings) It can be a pleasant experience (I’ve experienced it) but it can also be a little scary (You feel ungrounded, like you’re going to float away). I actually came away from that experience feeling that it was an interesting mental gymnastic, but that it wasn’t particularly significant in any philosophical or spiritual sense. I didn’t really LEARN anything. It didn’t make me a better person. I wasn’t “enlightened.”
I think that, for me, meditation is more useful in simply being able to objectively examine my own emotions and motives. I don’t chant or sit in a lotus position or any of that. I just sit and do some breathing exercises for a few minutes a day. It helps me calm my brain down and think a little more clearly. I do think that there are plenty of people who take it WAY too far. (interestingly enough, the people I’ve known who seem to go off the deep end with meditation are not ususally Asian Buddhists, but converted American white people. I guess that something about religious conversion in adulthood makes people more fanatical).