• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Atheists and theists: Endless confrontations

I went to a Catholic school as a kid and I was taught the creed but was not taught about the history of mysticism. So I would guess the percentage is low.

My experience as well.

It's probably a significant percentage.

...

Significant, but still a minority. I only asked the question in response to the contention that "All this God business...started long ago with spontaneous mystical experiences...." I believe that that was an unproven assertion. Particularly since your own link admits that a large majority of people have never had such an experience. An alternate hypothesis might be that religion developed independently of such experiences and that religious people who subsequently had them retrofitted them to their religious beliefs.


People who have strong religious experiences think those experiences are important.

In other news, water is wet.

I mean, honestly, it's pretty obvious that religion is important to the kind of people who have mystical experiences, and that such experiences are possible. They've been reported as far back as recorded history, can be induced on command in a lab with drugs, and are obviously part of how our brain works.

I'm not sure how the above could be the least bit controversial, unless one takes it further and says that therefore those religious experiences are objective evidence of something other than the fact that people's brains can produce a particular sensation.

An important point. In fact, pretty much every experience/observation that people have ever attempted to explain with religion has a more parsimonious explanation available via science.
 
Why should there be a conflict. You believe, without any mathematical proof, that one and only one straight line passes through a set of two points.

Ludwik Kowalski (see Wikipedia)
.

I believe that only if you add the qualifier "in Euclidean space", and then only because it has been proven.
 
Significant, but still a minority. I only asked the question in response to the contention that "All this God business...started long ago with spontaneous mystical experiences...." I believe that that was an unproven assertion. Particularly since your own link admits that a large majority of people have never had such an experience. An alternate hypothesis might be that religion developed independently of such experiences and that religious people who subsequently had them retrofitted them to their religious beliefs.


It only takes one spontaneously initiated shaman to mythologize an entire tribe.

"A prodigious expansion in Man's memory must have been the gift that differentiated mankind from his predecessors, and I surmise that this expansion in memory led to a simultaneous growth in the gift of language, these two powers generating in man that self-consciousness which is the third of the triune traits that alone make man unique. Those three gifts - memory, language and self-consciousness - so interlock that they seem inseparable, the aspects of a quality that permitted us to achieve all the wonders we now know."

R. Gordon Wasson, from pg. 80, Persephone's Quest: Entheogens and the Origins of Religion. Yale University Press, New Haven MA.
 
It only takes one spontaneously initiated shaman to mythologize an entire tribe.

It only takes one charismatic leader to do so. "Spontaneous initiation," whatever that is, is neither necessary nor sufficient.

"A prodigious expansion in Man's memory must have been the gift that differentiated mankind from his predecessors, and I surmise that this expansion in memory led to a simultaneous growth in the gift of language, these two powers generating in man that self-consciousness which is the third of the triune traits that alone make man unique. Those three gifts - memory, language and self-consciousness - so interlock that they seem inseparable, the aspects of a quality that permitted us to achieve all the wonders we now know."

R. Gordon Wasson, from pg. 80, Persephone's Quest: Entheogens and the Origins of Religion. Yale University Press, New Haven MA.

A perhaps plausible hypothesis. If the author, or anyone else, has found a way to test it, that would be welcome evidence of your position. OTOH AFAIK, none of those "three gifts" is entirely unique to humans. [1]
 
1) I cannot answer because infinity is not a number.

2) Suppose you ask about five distinct straight lines. Again I have a conceptual problem with your question; the lines are not distinct.

3) But I like the mental gymnastic questions.

Ludwik Kowalski (see Wikipedia)
.

Dear Prof. Kowalski,

I appropriate very much your will to define a common ground for Spirituality AND Materialism.

By actually doing it, both Spirituality AND Materialism are re-searched under a one unified framework that may enrich them during careful communication.

It is well known that the mathematical science is one of the most powerful communication tools among most branches of "exact science".

If it is possible to develop a communication tool which is derived from Logic AND Ethics, such that they are complement each other into a one unified framework, then maybe it is possible to open a consistent bridging between Spirituality AND Materialism.

For more details, please look at:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7511706&postcount=16304

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7289466&postcount=15706

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7376940&postcount=15989

http://www.scribd.com/doc/16669828/EtikaE


Yours,

Doron
 
Last edited:
Dear Prof. Kowalski,

I appropriate very much your will to define a common ground for Spirituality AND Materialism.

Dear Doron,

1) I am not trying "to define a common ground between spirituality and science." I am thinking about a way to end poisonous conflicts. A common ground may or may not be found later.

2) Methods of validation of claims in our material world (using logic based on reproducible experimental data) are not the same as those in our spiritual world (using logic based on holy books). Many potentially dangerous conflicts, between believers and nonbelievers, would disapper if such statement was universally recognized as valid.

3) Thank you for the links.

Ludwik Kowalski (see Wikipedia)
.
 
1) I am not trying "to define a common ground between spirituality and science." I am thinking about a way to end poisonous conflicts. A common ground may or may not be found later.

2) Methods of validation of claims in our material world (using logic based on reproducible experimental data) are not the same as those in our spiritual world (using logic based on holy books). Many potentially dangerous conflicts, between believers and nonbelievers, would disapper if such statement was universally recognized as valid.

This is the concept of "non-overlapping magisteria".

If preternatural things interact with natural things, they immediately become investigable by science and thus should be subjected to the science magisterium.

If Supernatural things do not interact with natural things then...ok...empirical science cannot investigate them.

So as long as the claim of theists remains within the preternatural realm and they never make the claim of miracles, or walking zombies, or gods talking to morons in caves or on mountain tops or impregnating little girls, then we are ok. But the moment they bring their gods or spirits or whatever into the natural world then by definition they will be subject to the scientific magisterium.
 
Last edited:
2) Methods of validation of claims in our material world (using logic based on reproducible experimental data) are not the same as those in our spiritual world (using logic based on holy books).

There are no 'holy books'. There are early attempts by early humans to make sense of the world in a period of time when they didn't have the tools or knowledge to investigate. There is nothing 'holy' about what they wrote down.
 
Many potentially dangerous conflicts, between believers and nonbelievers, would disapper if such statement was universally recognized as valid.
"Universality" and "common ground" are synonyms.

Furthermore, if Universality (which is not a statement itself, but it is the calm base ground of any possible expression, including statements) becomes an actual awareness among people, they are exposed to their non-subjective aspect of their life, which is the naturally calm common ground of any possible expression, whether it is spiritual of material.

Universality is not less than the Unity of Spirituality AND Materialism.

At Unity awareness people do not have to believe in X simply because they are directly aware of X such that the dangerous conflicts between believers and nonbelievers naturally disappear.

By analogy, please think about the case where your left and right hands are aware of the fact that they are actually organs of the same body.

Based on this awareness they are naturally at least do not hurt each other.
 
Last edited:
It only takes one charismatic leader to do so. "Spontaneous initiation," whatever that is, is neither necessary nor sufficient.


4. How does one become a shaman?
Some have wondered if the experience of shamanic ecstasy or flight makes a person a shaman. Generally speaking, most would say no. A shaman is more than someone with an experience. First, he or she is a trained initiate. Usually years of enculturalization and training under a mentor precede becoming a functioning shaman. Second, a shaman is not just an initiate who has received inner and outer training, but is a master of shamanic journeying and techniques (shamanic ecstasy). This is not a casual acquaintance with such abilities, there is some degree of mastery of them. Finally, a shaman is a link or bridge between this world and the next. This is a sacred trust and a service to the community. Sometimes a community that a shaman serves in is rather small. In other instances it may be an entire nation. A lot of that depends on social and cultural factors.

One becomes a shaman by one of three methods:

Hereditary transmission;
Spontaneous selection or "call" or "election"
personal choice and quest. (This latter method is less frequent and traditionally such a shaman is considered less powerful than one selected by one of the two preceding methods.) The shaman is not recognized as legitimate without having undergone two types of training:
Ecstatic (dreams, trances, etc.)
Traditional ("shamanic techniques, names and functions of spirits, mythology and genealogy of the clan, secret language, etc.) The two-fold course of instruction, given by the spirits and the old master shamans is equivalent to an initiation." (Mircea Eliade, The Encyclopedia of Religion, v. 13 , p. 202; Mcmillian, N.Y., 1987.) It is also possible for the entire process to take place in the dream state or in ecstatic experience. (bold mine)

"A common experience of the call to shamanism is a psychic or spiritual crisis, which often accompanies a physical or even a medical crisis, and is cured by the shaman him or herself....The shaman is often marked by eccentric behavior such as periods of melancholy, solitude, visions, singing in his or her sleep, etc. The inability of the traditional remedies to cure the condition of the shamanic candidate and the eventual self cure by the new shaman is a significant episode in development of the shaman. The underlying significant aspect of this experience, when it is present, is the ability of the shaman to manage and resolve periods of distress." - Dean Edwards

"Frequently a candidate will gain shamanic powers during a visionary experience in which he or she undergoes some form of death or personal destruction and disintegration at the hands of divine beings, followed by a corresponding resurrection or reintegration that purges and gives a qualitatively different life to the initiate. For example, the Siberian (Tagvi Samoyed) Sereptie, in his long and arduous initiatory vision (on which see below), was at one point reduced to a skeleton and then was 'forged' with a hammer and anvil. Autdaruta, an Inuit initiate, had a vision in which he was eaten by a bear and then was vomited up, having gained power over the spirits." -James R. Davila

"...The important moments of a shamanic initiation are these five; first, torture and violent dismemberment of the body; second, scraping away of the flesh until the body is reduced to a skeleton; third, substitution of viscera and reveal of the blood; fourth, a period spent in Hell, during which the future shaman is taught by the souls of dead shamans and by 'demons'; fifth, an ascent to Heaven to obtain consecration from the God of Heaven" -Mircea Eliade

"In the ages of the rude beginnings of culture, man believed that he was discovering a second real world in dream, and here is the origin of metaphysics. Without dream, mankind would never have had occasion to invent such a division of the world. The parting of soul and body goes also with this way of interpreting dream; likewise, the idea of a soul's apparitional body: whence, all belief in ghosts, and apparently, too, in gods."
- Neitzsche, Human, All-Too-Human
 
Last edited:
One becomes a shaman by calling one's self a shaman. It's as easy as that.

Dafydd ( see our reduced prices!)
 
....

2) Methods of validation of claims in our material world (using logic based on reproducible experimental data) are not the same as those in our spiritual world (using logic based on holy books). Many potentially dangerous conflicts, between believers and nonbelievers, would disapper if such statement was universally recognized as valid.

...
What could be rephrased as:

- Don't mess with us! Keep your side of the line! Then, we'd love each other
- The scientific method should apply to the material world except those parts or events someone decided to set aside for spiritual reasons -they'll have the last word on that for the sake of universal harmony-
- Most conflicts would disappear if some groups endure patiently and fatherly on the sight of the whimsical claims of other groups
- All would go well if somehow we manage to modify our cultural production to match human natural instincts of cooperation "at any cost"
- Diversity and individuality should submit to social tranquility

Disney Channel has many productions based on that

Alec Cowan (see Almanach de Gotha)
 
'(using logic based on holy books)'

Logic and holy books have nothing in common.

Dafydd ( see me after class)
 
This is the concept of "non-overlapping magisteria".

If preternatural things interact with natural things, they immediately become investigable by science and thus should be subjected to the science magisterium.

If Supernatural things do not interact with natural things then...ok...empirical science cannot investigate them.

So as long as the claim of theists remains within the preternatural realm and they never make the claim of miracles, or walking zombies, or gods talking to morons in caves or on mountain tops or impregnating little girls, then we are ok. But the moment they bring their gods or spirits or whatever into the natural world then by definition they will be subject to the scientific magisterium.

1) Thank you for comments, Leumus. Yes, my approach is essentially the same as that of S. Gould. In a submitted article, which I hope will be published in a journal, I give him credit for the idea.

2) Wikipedia told me what the word "preternatural" is. My suggestion was to totally separate physical (material) and metaphysical (spiritual) worlds. That is why the term is not needed, at least to begin the process.

3) Scientists who are also teologians, and teologians who are also scientists, will probably lead us to a world without poisonous conflicts. Perhaps they will find use for the term preternatural.

Ludwik Kowalski (see Wikipedia)
.
 
'(using logic based on holy books)'

Logic and holy books have nothing in common.

Yes, I think that's one of the weak points.

The religious side works best when logic is not applied.

Untestable theistic statements can be compatible with the scientific method when they're limited to things like "god is love."

Applying logic to holy books, though, highlights the internal contradictions and makes their testable claims refutable.

Pup (see AKC registry)
 
What could be rephrased as:

- Don't mess with us! Keep your side of the line! Then, we'd love each other
- The scientific method should apply to the material world except those parts or events someone decided to set aside for spiritual reasons -they'll have the last word on that for the sake of universal harmony-
- Most conflicts would disappear if some groups endure patiently and fatherly on the sight of the whimsical claims of other groups
- All would go well if somehow we manage to modify our cultural production to match human natural instincts of cooperation "at any cost"
- Diversity and individuality should submit to social tranquility

Disney Channel has many productions based on that

Alec Cowan (see Almanach de Gotha)

When I read the bolded (by me) part, I immediately started searching for a Stark image (you know, "Your side, my side!"). In vain, unfortunately.
 

Back
Top Bottom