Edge is a website inspired by C.P. Snow’s idea of two distinct intellectual cultures: one consisting of scientific innovators and the other consisting of literary thinkers. He suggested stronger communication between the two groups, hoping that a new breed of pragmatic, holistic thought would be the result. Edge allows a uniquely constructive collaboration between university professors, esteemed authors, and notable scientists.
This June, a conference regarding issues of morality included Sam Harris, Joshua Greene, and Paul Bloom among other invaluable contributors. It was called The New Science of Morality. On a side note, Sam Harris recently discussed his book The Moral Landscape on The Daily Show with Jon Stewart (October 4, 2010).
The group composed a consensus. It approaches the topic from neurological, sociological, epistemological, psychological, and genetic perspectives. There is an equally wide range of implications that can be drawn from the consensus. Endless food for thought
Consensus Statement:
edge.org/3rd_culture/morality10/morality_consensus.html
Event page, including individual transcripts and audio downloads:
edge.org/3rd_culture/morality10/morality10_index.html
Wednesday, October 6, 2010
Saturday, April 17, 2010
Disparity
There seems to be a regress that is polarizing the beliefs of the religious and non-religious. It is a symptom of the dangerous assumption that the different ideas that comprise a religion can be upheld or rejected together. When a religion is criticized, the critic frequently addresses problems that do not speak to the values held by a believer who has been touched by the faith.
Many moderate Christians, for instance, hold their faith dear to them because of personal reasons. Perhaps they have had a profound experience that they feel compelled to identify as divine. Because of the uncertainty of philosophy, they do not find their emotions unreasonable at all--certainly not to the extent that the nonreligious find Christianity as a whole.
Sometimes it's just as simple as an appreciation of the subculture. Whatever the reason a person has for treasuring a faith, it is seldom the same as what is being criticized. What causes one person to reject a faith seldom has anything to do with the "presence of God" that someone else genuinely believes to have felt. Why is there such a difference? Labels. The name of the religion that a critic condemns is the same name of the religion that shelters the emotions of a believer. A critic can easily become satisfied with the rationale for their distaste without understanding or even considering this spiritually engaging effect.
I, for one, am disgusted by the idea of hell. Why should I respect a religion that condemns me to an eternity of unimaginable torture? And for what--my refusal to profess allegiance? The two are caused by each other! The point is that none of them do a whole lot to convince the other side. But why should they? What does a Christian care if I don't find a particular idea rational or even ethical? When someone has an emotional connection to something, that connection can often withstand a remarkable amount of logic. It doesn't hurt if it is supported by a strength in numbers. What we see again are sentiments that reject one another without addressing each other.
The result of such a disparity is division. The believer comes across to the critic as unreasonable, illogical, and stubborn. At this point, he or she can do one of two things. One is to attempt to combat the logic that they see as a threat. The believer invents fallacious arguments and become exactly what their opponents scorn, thereby fueling the endless cycle of frustration. The second option is to passively reject nonbelievers as well as debate itself as spiritually lacking. Besides the resultant misunderstanding and condescension, the danger in this lies in the possibility of associating their emotions with the intolerance and absurdities that the rest of the religion entails. They may end up taking on these intolerant and absurd opinions and mindsets, which again polarizes the two sides. If they do not, then they may become disillusioned and leave the religion, haplessly leaving them without a creed. As it so happens, this is yet another scenario that can be caused by the unfortunate nominal association between that religion's different and potentially incompatible aspects.
Many moderate Christians, for instance, hold their faith dear to them because of personal reasons. Perhaps they have had a profound experience that they feel compelled to identify as divine. Because of the uncertainty of philosophy, they do not find their emotions unreasonable at all--certainly not to the extent that the nonreligious find Christianity as a whole.
Sometimes it's just as simple as an appreciation of the subculture. Whatever the reason a person has for treasuring a faith, it is seldom the same as what is being criticized. What causes one person to reject a faith seldom has anything to do with the "presence of God" that someone else genuinely believes to have felt. Why is there such a difference? Labels. The name of the religion that a critic condemns is the same name of the religion that shelters the emotions of a believer. A critic can easily become satisfied with the rationale for their distaste without understanding or even considering this spiritually engaging effect.
I, for one, am disgusted by the idea of hell. Why should I respect a religion that condemns me to an eternity of unimaginable torture? And for what--my refusal to profess allegiance? The two are caused by each other! The point is that none of them do a whole lot to convince the other side. But why should they? What does a Christian care if I don't find a particular idea rational or even ethical? When someone has an emotional connection to something, that connection can often withstand a remarkable amount of logic. It doesn't hurt if it is supported by a strength in numbers. What we see again are sentiments that reject one another without addressing each other.
The result of such a disparity is division. The believer comes across to the critic as unreasonable, illogical, and stubborn. At this point, he or she can do one of two things. One is to attempt to combat the logic that they see as a threat. The believer invents fallacious arguments and become exactly what their opponents scorn, thereby fueling the endless cycle of frustration. The second option is to passively reject nonbelievers as well as debate itself as spiritually lacking. Besides the resultant misunderstanding and condescension, the danger in this lies in the possibility of associating their emotions with the intolerance and absurdities that the rest of the religion entails. They may end up taking on these intolerant and absurd opinions and mindsets, which again polarizes the two sides. If they do not, then they may become disillusioned and leave the religion, haplessly leaving them without a creed. As it so happens, this is yet another scenario that can be caused by the unfortunate nominal association between that religion's different and potentially incompatible aspects.
Tuesday, May 6, 2008
More on Existence of God
As I have indicated numerous times, spiritual agnosticism by no means dictates whether or not God exists.
Rather, spiritual agnosticism claims that God's existence is irrelevent to life on earth, for even if there is a Supreme Being, it would not demand belief in its existence. Spiritual agnosticism condemns the "believe-or-burn" attitudes of conservative religious ideologies that demand belief in God in order to reach eternal peace.
Morality, by definition, is inate in all human beings. It can be repressed or accepted by the individual, but it is inate. Not surprisingly, the ethics of every single major religion are built on similar moral values, i.e. not killing, stealing, lying, etc. Rather than following the ethics of religion out of a fear of God, spiritual agnostics follow the same moral values for the purpose of reaping, giving, and sharing the rewards in this life time.
It should be noted that even if there is a God, there would be no way to tell which religious belief in divinity God would favor. Spiritual agnosticism shows that if there is a God, then he would favor those who truly follow the basic moral values that the religions of the world (as well as the conscience of the mind) agree on, no matter what religion, if any, those individuals choose to follow. This concept by and large allows for the sheer inclusivity of spiritual agnosticism as well as its accpeptance, whether concious or unconcious, by those who already have a liberal and/or loose allegience to a religion.
Rather, spiritual agnosticism claims that God's existence is irrelevent to life on earth, for even if there is a Supreme Being, it would not demand belief in its existence. Spiritual agnosticism condemns the "believe-or-burn" attitudes of conservative religious ideologies that demand belief in God in order to reach eternal peace.
Morality, by definition, is inate in all human beings. It can be repressed or accepted by the individual, but it is inate. Not surprisingly, the ethics of every single major religion are built on similar moral values, i.e. not killing, stealing, lying, etc. Rather than following the ethics of religion out of a fear of God, spiritual agnostics follow the same moral values for the purpose of reaping, giving, and sharing the rewards in this life time.
It should be noted that even if there is a God, there would be no way to tell which religious belief in divinity God would favor. Spiritual agnosticism shows that if there is a God, then he would favor those who truly follow the basic moral values that the religions of the world (as well as the conscience of the mind) agree on, no matter what religion, if any, those individuals choose to follow. This concept by and large allows for the sheer inclusivity of spiritual agnosticism as well as its accpeptance, whether concious or unconcious, by those who already have a liberal and/or loose allegience to a religion.
Saturday, December 29, 2007
Agnosticism, Not Atheism
I would like to point out that spiritual agnosticism is not synonymous with "atheism." Atheists firmly state that God does not, never has, and never will exist. Agnostics, on the other hand, acknowledge that while atheists may be able to support this claim, they cannot prove it. Agnostics say that God could exist.
Spiritual agnosticism is a rejection of religion, not of God's exstence. Since spiritual agnostics realize that God may or may not exist, they are considered part of the "agnosticism tent."
More importantly, spiritual agnosticism is distinguished from other types of agnosticism simply by the phrase "it doesn't matter." A spiritual agnostic would say "It doesn't matter whether God exists or not, or how you worhip God, what the afterlife consists of, etc."
Remember that spiritual agnostics emphasize the importance of the conscience. Since no human being can describe the divine with absolute certainty, spiritual agnostics instead place their confidence in this life's most reliable gauge of "goodness:" the conscience.
Spiritual agnosticism is a rejection of religion, not of God's exstence. Since spiritual agnostics realize that God may or may not exist, they are considered part of the "agnosticism tent."
More importantly, spiritual agnosticism is distinguished from other types of agnosticism simply by the phrase "it doesn't matter." A spiritual agnostic would say "It doesn't matter whether God exists or not, or how you worhip God, what the afterlife consists of, etc."
Remember that spiritual agnostics emphasize the importance of the conscience. Since no human being can describe the divine with absolute certainty, spiritual agnostics instead place their confidence in this life's most reliable gauge of "goodness:" the conscience.
Tuesday, December 25, 2007
Some quotes from Gandhi
Spiritual agnostics often like what revered philosphical leaders teach as opposed to the customs of mass religious organizations.
Some spiritual agnostics say that their spiritual beliefs can be summarized by the teachings of Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi, commonly called Mahatma Gandhi. Some famous quotes of Mahatma Gandhi that can be considered spiritually agnostic include:
** "Yes I am a Hindu. I am also a Muslim, a Christian, a Buddhist, and a Jew."
** "It is impossible for me to reconcile myself to the idea of conversion after the style that goes on in India and elsewhere today. It is an error which is perhaps the greatest impediment to the world’s progress toward peace … Why should a Christian want to convert a Hindu to Christianity? Why should he not be satisfied if the Hindu is a good or godly man?" (Harijan 30 January 1937)
** "I like your Christ. I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ." (The Times [London] (4 April 2005))
** "I came to the conclusion long ago … that all religions were true and also that all had some error in them, and whilst I hold by my own, I should hold others as dear as Hinduism. So we can only pray, if we are Hindus, not that a Christian should become a Hindu … But our innermost prayer should be a Hindu should be a better Hindu, a Muslim a better Muslim, a Christian a better Christian." (Young India (19 January 1928))
** "...Satan's successes are the greatest when he appears with the name of God on his lips."
** "I consider western Christianity in its practical working a negation of Christ's Christianity."
** "Nonviolence is the first article of my faith."
Some spiritual agnostics say that their spiritual beliefs can be summarized by the teachings of Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi, commonly called Mahatma Gandhi. Some famous quotes of Mahatma Gandhi that can be considered spiritually agnostic include:
** "Yes I am a Hindu. I am also a Muslim, a Christian, a Buddhist, and a Jew."
** "It is impossible for me to reconcile myself to the idea of conversion after the style that goes on in India and elsewhere today. It is an error which is perhaps the greatest impediment to the world’s progress toward peace … Why should a Christian want to convert a Hindu to Christianity? Why should he not be satisfied if the Hindu is a good or godly man?" (Harijan 30 January 1937)
** "I like your Christ. I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ." (The Times [London] (4 April 2005))
** "I came to the conclusion long ago … that all religions were true and also that all had some error in them, and whilst I hold by my own, I should hold others as dear as Hinduism. So we can only pray, if we are Hindus, not that a Christian should become a Hindu … But our innermost prayer should be a Hindu should be a better Hindu, a Muslim a better Muslim, a Christian a better Christian." (Young India (19 January 1928))
** "...Satan's successes are the greatest when he appears with the name of God on his lips."
** "I consider western Christianity in its practical working a negation of Christ's Christianity."
** "Nonviolence is the first article of my faith."
Heaven on Earth: The Conscience
I have mentioned the conscience numerous times in this blog, particularly in my last post. Doesn't the conscience bear a striking resemblance to the supposed judgement in the afterlife?
Of course. Many spiritual agnostics who do not believe in heaven or hell instead maintain that there is only a heaven on earth--a clear conscience. One can acheive a clear conscience by actively trying everyday to lead an honorable, benevolent life and by forgiving oneself of "sins." As I explained in the previous post, a sin is really nothing more than what you yourself determine to be an immoral act. In some religions, a heaven is promised as an afterlife to those who have led "good" lives, and minor sins may be forgiven by God. Many spiritual agnostics recognize that this heaven is already experienced on earth in the form of a clear conscience.
Of course, other spiritual agnostics do believe in an afterlife. However, the bottom line is that either way, a clear conscience is the reward to those who are satisfied with their lives. In other words, it really doesn't matter whether the individual believes in an afterlife or not.
Of course. Many spiritual agnostics who do not believe in heaven or hell instead maintain that there is only a heaven on earth--a clear conscience. One can acheive a clear conscience by actively trying everyday to lead an honorable, benevolent life and by forgiving oneself of "sins." As I explained in the previous post, a sin is really nothing more than what you yourself determine to be an immoral act. In some religions, a heaven is promised as an afterlife to those who have led "good" lives, and minor sins may be forgiven by God. Many spiritual agnostics recognize that this heaven is already experienced on earth in the form of a clear conscience.
Of course, other spiritual agnostics do believe in an afterlife. However, the bottom line is that either way, a clear conscience is the reward to those who are satisfied with their lives. In other words, it really doesn't matter whether the individual believes in an afterlife or not.
Good and Evil
The characteristics of good and evil are not always predetermined.
However, this does not mean that moral values can be comletely subjective. Whether or not an action is good or evil is not written in stone; it is up to the individual person. Humans naturally develop a sense of good and evil, and whether or not something is good or evil is determined by the innermost core of reason and instinct. One can kill in defense or steal for a greater good if the person truly feels that the action is justifiable and morally acceptable.
In the end, what matters is the appeasement of the conscience. People can choose to do what they want as long as they are at ease with their actions and wholly feel that they have "done the right thing."
However, this does not mean that moral values can be comletely subjective. Whether or not an action is good or evil is not written in stone; it is up to the individual person. Humans naturally develop a sense of good and evil, and whether or not something is good or evil is determined by the innermost core of reason and instinct. One can kill in defense or steal for a greater good if the person truly feels that the action is justifiable and morally acceptable.
In the end, what matters is the appeasement of the conscience. People can choose to do what they want as long as they are at ease with their actions and wholly feel that they have "done the right thing."
Belief is Nothing
Spiritual agnostics tend to think that beliefs about the divine are unimportant and irrelevant to real life. Rather, the actions are what count.
This train of thought originates from the rejection of paying "lip service" to the name of a religion. Spiritual agnostics prefer to place importance on the actual actions of an individual. For example, if one is kind to others, gives, is loving, pays respect when it is due, tries to refrain from murder, theft, lies, etc., (in other words, follows the basic benevolent human instincts that almost all religions emphasize), then that person does not need to be rewarded for following a particular faith. Rather, that person will be rewarded on Earth, where he/she will reap the benefits of stable relationships, a clear conscience, and an overall satisfaction with life.
This train of thought originates from the rejection of paying "lip service" to the name of a religion. Spiritual agnostics prefer to place importance on the actual actions of an individual. For example, if one is kind to others, gives, is loving, pays respect when it is due, tries to refrain from murder, theft, lies, etc., (in other words, follows the basic benevolent human instincts that almost all religions emphasize), then that person does not need to be rewarded for following a particular faith. Rather, that person will be rewarded on Earth, where he/she will reap the benefits of stable relationships, a clear conscience, and an overall satisfaction with life.
Integration with Religion
Some spiritual agnostics (often those who do not know that they are spiritual agnostics) may accept a certain religion, but they may also clarify that they do not believe followers of other religions are going to Hell (this punishment is what Christians and Muslims believe will happen to non-Christains/non-Muslims, for example). Hell is only one example of a punishment to "nonbelievers;" a spiritual agnostic would reject any idea of punishment to those who do not follow a particular religion.
The act of worshipping in the name of one and only one religion while ignoring all other religions or regarding them as inferior religions is an act that goes against the principles of spiritual agnosticism.
The act of worshipping in the name of one and only one religion while ignoring all other religions or regarding them as inferior religions is an act that goes against the principles of spiritual agnosticism.
Recognition of Corruption
Some spiritual agnostics also reject organized religion because they say that although leaders like Christ were benevolent philosophers (or divine, depending on that person's individual beliefs), their words have been too corrupted by followers wishing to justify their own questionable actions.
Exceptions to this rejection of organized religion include the Eastern Liberal Religions: Hinduism and Buddhism. Liberal followers of these two religions usually acknowledge and accept the values of spiritual agnosticism.
Exceptions to this rejection of organized religion include the Eastern Liberal Religions: Hinduism and Buddhism. Liberal followers of these two religions usually acknowledge and accept the values of spiritual agnosticism.
Monday, December 24, 2007
Inclusivity and Tolerance
Since all religions are considered synonymous, many spiritual agnostics align themselves with the religion that they were raised to align themselves with. Many spiritual agnostics call themselves followers of a certain religion yet simultaneously question how unique their religion really is.
Some spiritual agnostics maintain that organized, spiritually conservative religions like Christianity and Islam are fundamentally intolerent of other religions. Conservative religions are said to say that followers of the "wrong" religion will be punished. Spiritual Agnostics reject this spiritually conservative point of view.
(more to come -- subscribe to the blog!)
Some spiritual agnostics maintain that organized, spiritually conservative religions like Christianity and Islam are fundamentally intolerent of other religions. Conservative religions are said to say that followers of the "wrong" religion will be punished. Spiritual Agnostics reject this spiritually conservative point of view.
(more to come -- subscribe to the blog!)
Immaterial Differences
All religions have the same fundamental moral values, such as not killing, lying, stealing, cheating, etc. For this reason, a spiritual agnostic would say that the differences between religions are so petty that they do not matter. They would say that a good Christian is a good Jew is a good Hindu is a good Buddhist, etc.
Moral Value Emphasis
Spiritual Agnostics are generally religiously liberal. The fundamental ideas behind spiritual agnosticism are similar to the ideas behind modernized Eastern Religions, such as liberal Hinduism and liberal Buddhism. Spiritual agnostics emphasize the moral values that are present in almost all religions, whether they are written in the Ten Commandments or the Eightfold Path.
Definition
I realize that I am certainly not the first one or even the millionth one to ever think about some of these ideas. I am merely grouping the ideas and hoping to spread them. For my first blog, I will give a general definition of spiritual agnosticism:
Spiritual agnosticism, also called ethical agnosticism, fundamental agnosticism and sometimes inquisitive agnosticism, is the acceptance of the spiritual value of universal ethics yet rejection of divisive and fundamentally intolerent religion. A spiritual agnostic would say "It doesn't matter what religion you call yourself a follower of, nor does it matter whether or not you believe in God. What matters is what you do, not what you believe."
Spiritual agnosticism, also called ethical agnosticism, fundamental agnosticism and sometimes inquisitive agnosticism, is the acceptance of the spiritual value of universal ethics yet rejection of divisive and fundamentally intolerent religion. A spiritual agnostic would say "It doesn't matter what religion you call yourself a follower of, nor does it matter whether or not you believe in God. What matters is what you do, not what you believe."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
