Hey Cumol, not sure if you saw this podcast was recently re-posted. Talk about timing. I strongly agree with lil's bit about having a sense of oneness, especially at something such as concert or play, stand-up comedy, things of that nature. It's part of why I like concerts so much, namely the small ones. I do not feel a connection when there are thousands of people watching a band play, but throw me in a room with 50 other people watching some small-town band play and there is very much a sense of oneness, and a sense of spirituality and purpose associated with it. I am not religious, I do not have a belief in a God or any diety, I do not necessarily believe in life after death or that everything will be alright in the end, that there's a heaven and hell or whatever you want to call these things. I am not a faithful person. However, I have over time gained some sort of sense of spirituality. I believe that in recognizing moments, in being able to critically analyze the meaning of moments in your life, can lead to sense of spirituality and a more innate sense of purpose. On occasion, I believe that this spiritual feeling is something that isn't reasonable, that things enter and leave your life in precise moments that cannot be controlled, and thus cannot be accounted for. But they are there, and they are important. And it is because of the existence of these unknowable and transitional moments that I feel spiritual at times. I believe that the incursion of these moments, however fleeting, can lead to a personal enlightenment.
Hey bfx, thanks for the [not] shoutout. Be that as it may, I love the ambiguity in this line:
I believe that in recognizing moments, in being able to critically analyze the meaning of moments in your life, can lead to sense of spirituality
I say ambiguity because people rarely associate critical analysis with spirituality. Of course, I totally agree. We might be thinking apes in clothes, but there's a lot of wonder and awe in the thinking part.
A little manual of Mazdean doctrine, written in Pahlavi and
dating from the fourth century of our era, contains a number
of questions the answers to which everyone over the age of
fifteen is supposed to know.
The first questions are:
Who am I and to whom do I belong?
Whence have I come and whither am I returning?
What is my lineage and what is my race?
What is my proper calling in earthly existence?
Did I come from the celestial world, or is it in
the earthly world that I began to be?
Do I belong to Ahura-Mazda or to Ahriman?
To the angels or the demons?

And here are the answers:
I came from the Celestial Realm (menok),
it is not in the Terrestrial Realm that I began to be.
 I belong to Ahura Mazda, The Might The Wise,
I was originally manifested in the Spiritual State,
my original state is not the Material State.
not to Ahriman.
I belong to the Angels, not to the demons
I am the Creature of Ahura-Mazda,
not the creature of Ahriman.
I hold my Lineage and my race from GayuMarth (Adam).
My Mother is SpandarMat [Gaya],
My Father is Ahura-Mazda
The Accomplishment of my Service in The Field of Action
consists in this:
To think of All-Powerful WiseMind as
Present Existence
which has always existed,
and will always exist.
To think of HIM as
Immortal Sovereignty
As Limitation Transcending
and Purity
To think of Ahriman as pure negativity
exhausting himself in nothingness
as the Evil Spirit who formerly did not exist in this Creation
and who one day will cease to exist in Ohrmazd's Creation
and who will collapse at the Final Time
To consider my True Self as belonging to

The Mighty The Wise
And the ArchAngels
!! !! !*!
And Remember
The time when Abraham and EsmaEL
Raised the Foundations of the House,
praying:
Our LORD, Accept this from us; for YOU Are
the All-Hearing, the All-Knowing
Our Lord, make us both Self-Surrendering to THEE
and make of our offspring a people Self-Surrendering to THEE.
And Show us our ways of Worship
And Turn to us with mercy
For YOU are
Oft-Returning with compassion, and Ever Merciful
And, Our Lord, raise up among them a Messenger
from among themselves
who may Recite to them YOUR Self-Evident-Indications
And Teach them The Book and Wisdom and may Purify them
Surely YOU Are
The Mighty The Wise [Ahura-Mazda]
[The Illuminating Lecture - Sura The Sacrificial Heifer]
!M! !M! !M!
Nice job thenewgreen! For anyone who hasn't seen it, Doubt is a pretty good movie, if only for Seymour Hoffman's great performance. Small pet peeve of mine: you have some strong p-sounds in the first part of your voice recording, maybe it's a good idea to get a pop filter or to put your finger over your mouth (like this) has been known to help too.
Thanks veen. I had a pop-screen but it broke a while back. It's time I get another, especially if people are calling me out on my "P's." So, how about you? Where do you fall on the realm of spirituality and religion? Do you think we have an innate desire for these things? Are you yourself a religious or spiritual person?
I'm not religious nor spiritual. I feel like I'm lying to myself when I have faith. To use Kb's words, I just don't have capacity to believe in the unprovable nor do I have the need to believe in the unprovable. It feels like I'm being dishonest to myself. I think we have an innate desire for answers, not for spirituality. Religion has historically been a place where people could find answers to phenomena in their daily life, e.g. lightning struck your house because you angered Zeus. Our modern world is an even more confusing and at times depressing place. I can completely understand why someone would turn to faith for answers to, say, the millions of people dying of hunger, the poverty in the world and come to the conclusion that "everything happens for a reason". But that feels to me like a form of cognitive dissonance. I mean, I don't have the answers, but I am okay with not having the answers.Do you think we have an innate desire for these things?
I think the most wise people I have ever met are the people who say "I don't know" the most often, and the people who are the most pleased to be proven incorrect. I am trying to come to a better place with being wrong about things, to be more excited about new, better information rather than upset at the loss of security in old information.
I see God as a placeholder for that which we don't understand. As mortal beings with finite lifespans we do not have the capacity to know everything and so we use this placeholder as a way to balance the equation and account for the unaccountable. We can think of the sum of this placeholder, the sum of our knowledge gaps, as having a net negative result, a vengeful God, or a net positive, a benevolent God. I like the think of the placeholder as reflective, giving back out what we put into it. This isn't universally true, but it's a mindset that helps me to navigate an unknowable world and maintain a level certainty and sanity. As far as Christianity, the dogma I was brought up in, I have had Christ explained to me in a very concise and meaningful way as compassion. In the face of the unknowable, we have the option of acting in our own self interests even if that comes to the detriment of others. The old God could, at times, be very cold and compassionless and was probably a necessity for the times. But as society got more complex that coldness became more detrimental. Christ was a mediator between that cold unknown, attempting to show the value of compassion in the face of the unknown and the power that could arise from such compassion.
Thank you for some really great points. I think this is true for many people and the history of humanity. And perhaps why the world is less and less religious as time goes on. We no longer need a "god" to explain what fire is or from whence it comes. I often wonder where god will fit in modern society, if at all.I see God as a placeholder for that which we don't understand
Perhaps. I think about this, and most things, as a pendulum, swinging back and forth. For the time our known science is advancing on our known universe, explaining the pluto is red or showing us the monsters under the seas. But what happens when our science reaches a point where it expands our universe? When we come across some outside life that is so different from what we ever thought possible that our theories race far beyond our capacity for understanding? Suddenly we find ourselves again in a place where we are impossibly small and "not we" is impossibly big. We'll call it something other than God, but we'll still cling to that core concept of a placeholder to help us sleep at night. That's my theory anyway.
I believe spirituality is the constant pursuit of being in touch with one's own spirit, with the life force that drives us all things to exist. The difference between spirituality and religion then is that religion is a convention - a way for people to talk about similar experiences with similar terms. Christianity says you're born again, Buddhism says you've attained enlightenment. All of these religions have differing terms for the same thing. What is that ultimate goal then? What does it mean to be enlightened or to be born again? When we're born, we're free. We have no expectations, no fear of judgement. Then we're conditioned into believing we have to behave a certain way and say certain things to gain the approval of the rest of the Universe. Being born again/enlightened means to decondition your Self back to a place of pure love. There is only Fear and Love, and we have the ability and the right to choose Love. I believe the term God is synonymous with Love, the Tao, Spacetime, Aether, Field of Potentiality, etc. Despite what modern physics and renormalization tells us. The vacuum of space has an infinite amount of energy. To me, that's God/Love/Tao. Spirituality is the pursuit of cultivating an awareness of our interconnectedness with that infinite energy, to see that we are one and the same. Then, extrapolating, that everyone and everything arises from that same field. I believe we do come by all of this naturally, if we are aware of awareness. I like this quote from Conversations with God, "If I do not go within, I go without." All of the stuff religions and spiritual folk talk about can be verified through introspection. And that's precisely the reason why there's so much skepticism surrounding the matter. All of this can only be verified through subjective experiences. I can talk till the end of time about how I believe what I do, but the only way you'll believe me is through looking inward.
My take is that religion is going out of date rapidly, and spirituality doesn't exist outside of a fancy way to describe feelings. I am not religious. I am not spiritual. Humans have a natural tendency to make up actors to explain events. "religion" in that sense is natural. However, the acts of worship, the acts of following rules, is form ancient leaders abusing those traits to create control over their subjects.
For a major part of my life I identified as Roman Catholic, but I have since deconverted and now consider myself a Secular Humanist. I believe that any viewpoint should be scrutinized and considered and not simply taken on faith. I also reject supernatural beliefs because I currently have not found any convincing evidence to support them. Having grown to become somewhat of a skeptic over the years, I feel a bit uncomfortable (and perhaps pedantic) using terms like "supernatural" or "non-physical" because they don't make much logical sense to me (e.g., How exactly can a person conceive the non-physical when the physical is the only thing that has been a part of his experience?). Similarly, I get somewhat frustrated by the term "spirituality" because so many people use it in different ways- it's extremely subjective. But I think I can try to take a shot at what I think differs religion from what I consider spirituality. From what I gather, the meaning of the term has really shifted over time. Traditionally the term used to have a much more pious connotation than it does today; more modern conceptions of the term tend to omit any specific theological reference. I believe that this definition change is reflective of a growing understanding that there are many paths to the spiritual experience. Personally, I do not think the spiritual experience has to refer to anything necessarily supernatural. Rather, I think the term really refers to the way individuals seek and express meaning and purpose in life. It also relates to the way an individual can seek connection to something they consider meaningful (often more important than themselves). Perhaps what separates each spiritual experience is how it is directed- whether it is to the self, this moment in time, to others, to nature or to the sacred. By this standard, I would say the spiritual experience is a fundamental part of the human experience. It can definitely be attributed to a particular religion, but it is ultimately not necessary. Much like what was said in the video, religion is a more organized and related set of beliefs and practices . The spiritual, on the other hand, is what can be experienced by any individual.
Do you feel like you have an innate need for spirituality at all? I like veen's response to that question, that we have an innate need for "answers."
I completely agree with veen. I would add that certain people have the capacity for such a need and certain others do not. And frankly I think really this challenges the idea that spirituality is innate to us. In reality it could be that spirituality might have more to do with cultural influence or upbringing rather than inherently being part of human nature. That is simply my guess of course- but it would account for the sometimes stark differences that we can see between different people.