I am, like you, circumspect about committing to any beliefs at all, particularly in the absence of any evidence one way or another. I think it is a matter of psychological constitution and disposition. I have no problem with others being able to believe things without having what I would call evidence for those beliefs. Outside of the empirical domain, where we may have solid evidence, I think there is nothing wrong with believing simply on the basis that it feels right, as long as you acknowledge that the belief is personal, just for you, and should never be imposed on others.

Godsplaining:

The attempt to earn cultural capital or seduce by explaining spiritual concepts to people even though no one has asked for or needs an explanation.

To attribute divine significance to something, usually in a forced manner

Source: Urban Dictionary

I love the stupid terns this generation keeps making up. Godsplaining, mansplaining. Its really funny!

Thanks for the reply. Agree completely.

I may have been going out on a limb requiring some kind of logic in spiritual talk. Guess we have to trust our instincts. Like plants have a geotropism and heliotropism, humans seem to have a deotropism. A reaching toward the divine, a Creator, the supernatural, or the Ideal realm; whatever beliefs the person may have. It could manifest as a desire to be a creator, an artist. If that relates to a growing towards the sun, we also have a desire for grounding, for roots. This is easily dismissed as boring or even holding us down. But it may keep us from being misled.

It is just that people (including me) seem hungry for both the spiritual and for answers. So it is almost like there is a sellers market for hucksters of any faith (or newly minted system) who can can dazzle, persuade, entertain, and provide something that fills the hole in the soul.

It is just that people (including me) seem hungry for both the spiritual and for answers. — 0 thru 9

The spiritual and answers. I think that you learn in time if you're lucky enough to learn it at all, is that people are the source of both, and that what is achieved in the way of spirituality and answers is got through doing, active living, and reflection, meaning application of reason.

Movement towards them is an upstream effort. Virtue is virtue in action. You can be good all day long in your chair, but unless you're doing something in that chair, no good will come of it. The man - or woman - behind the curtain becomes you. But the work behind the curtain is no fraud, it is just and simply real; the magic is that there is no magic.

If spirituality and answers be like a sandwich to a hungry person, on getting his hands on it he discovers first there is no meat in it, then there is no bread! His anticipations need not be wasted, though. They have given him clues as to what a real sandwich is, and where one might be found, and he can then go get a real one. The sandwich metaphor holds in the eating as well. The need for spirituality and answers never leaves. It is a legitimate appetite. Once the sandwich in hand is eaten - and gone - one soon enough sets about looking for another. All in the way of the good.

At the end of life, the happy man says not that he was good or found good, but that he did good, or as much of it as he could. Of course he couldn't do it until and unless he found it and was it, but the process of those are parts of the thing sought.

A decent religion - they're not all decent - is simply an attempt at organized thinking about the good. And this itself is a good, providing one neither misunderstands nor gets caught up in the stories.

Spirituality and answers, then, become like Aristotle's happiness - something assessed near the end of life, and based on the passages of that life.

Thanks for your thoughtful and sincere messages. Examples of what is interesting and helpful about this forum, IMHO. :smile:

I think a core issue here is reflected in the ancient question of relative truth vs absolute truth. Confer the Two Truths Doctrine. We as humans can ask any question, discern many possible answers, and hold any belief. But our feet are always planted in the relative realm, even when pondering the nature of the Absolute. That does not diminish or discourage the truths we can observe or communicate. However, it does frame them in time and space, and in human context.

When ideas are framed as ideas, beliefs presented as beliefs, and theories given as theories; then one simply chooses to play along or not. No foul or illegal move has been committed. The danger of assuming an Absolute vantage point is not that that is gives one God’s knowledge, but that one would lead one to think that they have it.

Not attacking religion here, for this criteria includes atheism as well; specifically so-called explicit strong atheism. To claim that God or spirit cannot exist because it has not been proven, or may indeed be unprovable, is most unscientific for it shuts the door on any possible evidence. And it assumes it has an absolute vantage point. The zeal to save the world from irrational religious beliefs may be admirable. But if the “ground rules” for relative and absolute truths exist, they apply to all parties and any position... (including the ones expressed in this post).

The public, amateur, "God is" argument is, has been, and sadly will be, characterized with a large degree of disrespect from both sides. From zealot evangelists on one side - claiming damnation on the non- believer - to zealots on the other side claiming it takes a feebleness of mind to believe in a fairy tale.

There are fair arguments for "God is" and "God is not" - and as such neither camp as of right now hold a superior position - so both camps deserve respect.

I will save my intolerance for the agnostic !!

The public, amateur, "God is" argument is, has been, and sadly will be, characterized with a large degree of disrespect from both sides. From zealot evangelists on one side - claiming damnation on the non- believer - to zealots on the other side claiming it takes a feebleness of mind to believe in a fairy tale.

There are fair arguments for "God is" and "God is not" - and as such neither camp as of right now hold a superior position - so both camps deserve respect. — Rank Amateur

Good points. Competition is made to be everything. (No surprise in our current culture, I suppose). There must be a winning side, a dominant argument, a conquering genius superhero. In actuality, both spiritual belief and scientific inquiry are rather open-ended processes. Both are agreeable to new inspiration or information, as the case may be.

But when domination is the mission, and the marketers take over, the systems have to be sealed tight and streamlined. They are made military-grade. And completely self-sufficient, with answers for everything. One-stop shopping, no need to search elsewhere for this is your home. Now grab a sword of truth and defend thy home!

But it must thankfully said, I rarely see the extreme position of supposed absolute certainty (argued against in this thread) held by anyone on this forum. Maybe an active mind resists prepackaged insta-beliefs systems delivered to your door. So this may all be preaching to the choir. If so, good for you. :up:

I will save my intolerance for the agnostic !! — Rank Amateur

:grin: Oh no, not the ignostic too?! But I’ve found a comfy spot on the fence to watch the parade!

:grin: Oh no, not the ignostic too?! But I’ve found a comfy spot on the fence to watch the parade! — 0 thru 9

Yea, only marginally tongue in cheek there. I think agnosticism is the most difficult option to defend, if actions are a demonstration of beliefs. Most, all by some social definition act in one way or the other. Largely because the options are dichotomous. The agnostic acts in one way, showing a belief, but wants to hold an intellectual hedge on the other position. Which always sounds reasonable in the God debate, but quite silly in almost any other topic.

You never hear anyone agnostic over Santa or unicorns. Although the primary agnostic argument holds for both.

Maybe there is something in the inherent value of the choice that makes folks want to hold a hedged position

I think agnosticism is the most difficult option to defend — Rank Amateur

Defends on how you understand the term. Agnostic about your beliefs, sure. Agnostic about my beliefs, not at all. I buy the notion that a general agnosticism about everything in terms of beliefs doesn't make much sense, but it also implies skepticism and there's nothing wrong with that.

thanks. The way I defined it was using actions as evidence of beliefs. Something along the lines of:

P1. People generally act in accordance with what they believe to be true

P2. People generally act either theistic or atheistic

P3. People don’t in the short term vary between theism and atheism.

C. If people generally act as either theistic or atheistic, that is in accordance with what they believe to be true.

It's a question of defending actions? Who's defending whom's? The right way here is through recourse to the actual meaning of the words, instead of "the way I defined it." That restores missing rigor and discipline of thought and allows people to actually understand you (as best they can), instead of thinking they understand you, when they don't.

Theism is a kind of belief (to be distinguished from any kind of knowledge, thereby removing it from the possibility of any critique appropriate to a critique of knowledge).

Atheism is a critical stance with regard, usually, to theism. As a critical stance it is completely misguided because, usually, it attacks theism as knowledge.

Neither of these has anything to do with action.

Perusing the ancient Greek school of Pyrrhonism, one comes across the concept of Epoché, the suspension of judgement. This being done in order to ideally achieve a state of freedom from worry and anxiety, which the Greeks called ataraxia.

I mention it here to draw some comparison to the point of the OP. Or a possible strategy towards approaching the big questions of metaphysics that avoids both presumption and dogma on one hand, and apathy and a lack of curiosity on the other.

The metaphysical questions Buddha refused to answer might also be relevant here.

When advocating the reduction or removal of some thing or idea, it seems useful to be able to provide a substitute to occupy the space held by that which was to be replaced. For example, one can say to avoid eating such and such unhealthy foods. But since we have to eat something, providing an acceptable substitute helps immensely. And similarly with ideas and beliefs, the empty space will be filled with something, whether it is beneficial to the person or not.

Why is the world so messy? Because nature abhors a vacuum. :grin: