Senate New Age Debate

so what ideology are you offering?

 

I’d argue a belief in supernatural beings and praying for their worldly intervention in the day to day goings on in people’s lives is not logical or rational. Rationality is tied to logic but how is action based upon a reading of tarot any more or less logical than action based upon the text of a book which proposes the existence of supernatural deities for which there is no evidence at all? How is it logical to follow a moral code based upon those unproven propositions when the same kind morality can be followed without reference to those propositions?

 

I'm offering that people use their brain instead of just believing whatever magical answers are offered to them.

 

Well, I think that's a potato-potahto scenario. You're saying it's a "secular Christmas" and I'm saying it's a religious holiday being celebrated without any real belief in the religious scenario it commemorates. Aren't those the same things? And if you're talking about Christmas entirely based around Santa Claus and love without any reference at all to the religious trappings, then I would say that's possible. I mean, there is a catalog of completely secular Christmas songs (and a catalog of winter songs that aren't even about Christmas), but I would contend that a lot of popular musicians cover explicitly religious songs on Christmas albums and a lot of completely non-religious people will be hearing them and, yes, even singing along with them over the next two weeks.

But I mean "facet of life" is a stronger statement than "component," I think and I was responding more to your question about religion being a "component" of the lives of people who don't actually hold religious beliefs.

I'm not saying any religion or set of spiritual beliefs is any more or less rational or logical than any other. I'm just saying that within a set of beliefs, there can be internal consistency. And isn't logic used in terms of things that we can't prove? I mean, if something is just demonstrably true, then there's no need for logic, is there? I don't know that much about logic as a discipline. Can you use logic to come to an untrue conclusion? I'm genuinely asking. I would imagine you can. If only because human beings don't follow the laws of logic in their actions. So, I would imagine that you could use completely logical reasoning to explain why someone isn't going to do something and then they just do it because they're an idiot. So, I wonder if you couldn't use logic to come to a conclusion that God exists or that humanity is basically evil or that ghosts exist or any number of things. I'm just thinking out loud. And getting us off topic, I guess. The thought just triggered when it was posited that religion is inherently irrational. Unprovable, yes. I'm just not sure I'd say irrational. I probably have a misapprehension about the discipline of logic.

Well, wait, what was that guy's name, the one who posited that it was impossible for anyone to move because it's impossible to move an infinitesimally short distance and yet you have to move an infinitesimally short distance before you can move any measurable distance? He was kind of doing experiments in logic and was coming to what I would consider to be incorrect conclusions. Zeno. I Googled it. I mean, I've butchered that experiment terribly I'm sure. Anyway, I'm so off-topic that I'm feeling the urge to bring up the Matrix sequels.

 

I don't think that represents 'religion' (the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods or a particular system of faith and worship) as a component of life though, any more than I think someone watching Battlestar Galactica therefore has religion as a component of their lives. The belief system isn't present, and religion is by definition beliefs, not the things someone with a belief came up with.

(and tangentially, I don't see how Santa Claus could be discussed without any reference to religious trappings)

 

Interesting. See, I would say that behavior is as much a part of a religion as belief is. I mean that in terms of both adherence to a moral code that's part of the religion and also in terms of rituals. I would absolutely say that "religion" encompasses "the things someone with a belief came up with." I often feel, to be honest, that sometimes that's all a religion is: the rules and rituals without any real commitment to belief. Religion without spirituality is how I would define it. But it feels like you're saying that if I believe (which I don't) that when I take the Eucharist I am literally consuming the flesh of Christ, then having that belief is religious; but actually taking the Eucharist isn't. The religion is only the belief, not any action taken on that belief.

Though now I am trying to think of a religion that is entirely belief based and recommends no real actions or behaviors on the part of its followers, where just having the belief in your mind is all you have to do to adhere to the religion. I think there's a reading of Buddhism where that's the case; I mean, if you really go all in on the "God's dream" theory, then there's a case to be made that there are no moral or immoral actions and thus actions are entirely beside the point. It's the realization that is the key and that very realization removes the possibility of a moral or immoral action. Most Buddhists would not agree with that certainly; that would not be a good way to progress on the wheel. Though, again, how far do you take it? Is the wheel part of the dream? You could make the case. Regardless, hardly a traditional take on Buddhism, but, still, that's the closest I can come to a religion of pure belief.

Good point about Santa Claus though.

 

Hope is not rational.

 

I think you can say that the behavior is also a component, but my point is more that without a belief component in some capacity, it isn't religion. For a secular celebration of Christmas, there's not only no belief required, there's no expectation of belief (whereas the Eucharist is supposed to have an element of faith to it). If one doesn't have the beliefs, one is not supposed to take communion for many religions, but I've never had anyone presume that because I went to a Christmas party that I must be Christian, nor was that ever contingent on having a Christmas tree, putting up lights, exchanging gifts, etc.

It's possible to enjoy artwork about fictional stuff, so the carols don't require or expect any religious sentiment either; I also don't think Lola was actually a showgirl that Rico and Tony got into a fight over, but it's a catchy song. Spirit in the Sky is explicitly Christian in its lyrics, but was also written by a Jewish songwriter.

 

I mostly agree with that. I might say that you're putting more weight on the subjective perspective of each particular individual in terms of defining an entirely separate thing than I would. But I kind of forgot what my original point even was and we've ranged far afield, so I won't get nitpicky. I think my potatoe-potahtoe thing still sort of stands; I think we probably agree more than it sounds like we do. Anyway, fun discussion, fun to think about, I now return you to your regularly scheduled New Age Thread.

 

I pretty much see both sides of this issue. The secular, atheist existentialist notion is that no higher power exists, and that we create a morality through our own actions as individuals and groups.

In contrast, I like the notion of a unitarian universalist Christian notion. That is more in line with pluralism. So, basically, this notion goes like this. Exclusivism holds that salvific truth and truths in general can only be found in one faith. Then there is inclusivism. Inclusivism holds that salvific truth can only be found in one faith, but non-salvific truths can also be found in other faiths and ideologies. As for pluralism, pluralists hold that truths can be found in any system, theistic or atheistic, and both can be salvific. This is found in progressive Hinduism's respect for both theistic and atheistic systems. It is also found in Unitarian Universalist Christianity's respect for both theistic and atheistic systems. Or at least this is what I studied during my time in this liberal, central Fort Worth seminary for two semesters back in 2011. This is the same place that invited Jeremiah Wright to speak way back when.

So, anyway, while I mostly sympathize with the secular position, I also sympathize with what Lowbacca was saying because the notion of believing in a higher power does provide some people with a sense of compassion and empathy for their fellow sapient beings. I believe we get caught up in the notion of a dualistic higher power. For me, I like the more transcendental notion that every atom in this universe has a divine spark. Emerson referred to this as the Over-Soul, or the Hindu notion that the Atman permeates the entirety of the Cosmos. More progressive Christians reject the notions of Hell or Satan and they say that Jesus saved everyone, regardless of whether or not they believed in him. It's pretty obvious that Christians like that agree with the Mahayana Buddhist construction of theology. This holds that there was never any Buddha nor Jesus. Those figures are just metaphors for the good within all people. The notion behind is that those who reject compassion and love for themselves damn themselves. So, by this ancient notion originating from Isaac of Niveneh, someone like Hitler would feel like Heaven was Hell because he would be around a God that loved him and he would be surrounded by his 11 million victims. However long he perceived it that way would be up to him, but knowing him, he'd probably perceive Heaven as Hell for a pretty darn long time. But then, there are those who believe in notions of reincarnation or the idea that souls are as temporary as galaxies, plants, animals, or any other material construct in the notion. So, by that logic, say our souls break apart. Based on our actions (Good and bad), then some pieces of our souls would go to good lives, whereas other pieces would go to bad lives. This is where Buddhism foreshadows the discovery of physics, obviously, in a peculiar way. But you get the picture.

Anyhow, believe it or not, there are some Christians who believe that it took billions of years for the universe to form, and there are some among their number who believe in evolution. That's just an example of how not all of them are mean, homophobic, and racist. I grew up with some of those people in the Methodist system.

All of this supernatural stuff could be considered figurative. It's possible that there nothing supernatural at all, and that all this religious stuff is just a metaphor to say, "Don't treat others like they're a piece of ****. Be loving and don't abuse others." So, that's where my transtheism comes in. I don't think atheists are superior to theists, nor do I believe theists are superior to atheists. Anyhow, I'm a bit tired and I just got off work from VIPKid. But this is my way of summing it up. This is just my opinion.

 

Catching up because it’s been a crazy weekend… totally agreed.

 

On an intellectual level, my poor experience with the New Agers in Dallas was how they turned nondualistic systems into dualistic systems.

On a visceral level, I wondered why they only believed in two genders. But that wasn't nearly as offensive as the racism. I also felt that they exploited the notion of polyamory and used it as a cover for cheating. While some of it was misogynistic, their methods were also misandrist. It typically went both ways more often than not. A few of them were genuine and honest polyamorists. The others were abusing that label. Long story made short.

But I don't want to criticize the New Agers who actually had studied Theravada Buddhism and Zen Buddhism. Plus, there were a few who believed that all humans were equal and they were not transphobic. Obviously, those were the ones who were not blocked on my FB by September 2017. Ha ha. Those were a few cis women and a cis man who actually opposed vile concepts like racism and transphobia.

Anyhow, on a minor not, Buddhism in its original Theravadan for is purely nontheistic. That means that it is neither atheistic nor theistic. I actually have a lot of respect for that concept.

 

What is the Buddhist take on transgender issues? I would imagine they'd be cool with it. The God that is you can be endlessly creative, after all. Alan Watts used to say that about how Buddhists felt about Christians, sort of a "Now, God, you have really outdone yourself this time to make yourself a Christian."

 

Depends on the culture interpreting the Buddhism, as is the case in every religion. In some places, Buddhists are totally cool with it. In others, not.

There is a ruling Buddhist class in Myanmar, for example, that is trying to execute a genocide against the largely Muslim Rohingya people.

Religion is a tool that can be used for good, or twisted into an absolute horror.

 

Maybe you were supposed to have intercourse with the rock.

 

I used to work with a devout Buddhist whose politics were to the right of Attila the Hun. Her response to the abuses at our border was the classic, "Well, they shouldn't be coming here anyway." When I mentioned that denying asylum-seekers a hearing was a violation of international law, she just threw up her arms and walked away. Enlightened, that one.

Regardless of whether the visionary be Buddha, Christ, Smith or Marx, there will always be a parade of fools and malcontents who misinterpret or pervert said vision.

 

Originalist Buddhists don’t comment on whether there is a God or not, because it doesn’t matter or have impact on their diagnosis and treatment plan for suffering.

Since this is the New Age thread, I will say that they have really distorted the popular perception of what Buddhism actually is. It’s not “God is within you” at all.

Hindus believe that the core self is the same as the core of all consciousness and the core of the universe itself. And that we need to remember this deep in our being, that we already have what we want, infinite being-consciousness-bliss, and to remember that is moksha. But that’s different from saying you are God.

And the whole point of Buddhism is that they even disagree with that belief of Hinduism. Buddhism believes there’s dependent origination, no true self. We are nothing. We are empty, everything is empty, there is no core essence. So if we don’t want to suffer then we need to get over ourselves, let go of our attachment and desires, because they don’t mean anything in the end, they just give us suffering. Realize we’re nothing, extinguish the flame of self and of desire, that’s nirvana.

New Age beliefs are definitely its own thing, maybe they’re right, who knows, no one knows, but it’s a pet peeve when New Age people claim or give the impression their beliefs are from Buddhism. When they’re closer to Hinduism, and even then still very different. And there’s plenty of diversity within the Dharmic religions of Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism, Sikhism, etc. Hinduism especially is quite diverse, and there’s a big difference between Theravada Buddhism and Mahayana Buddhism, not all Buddhism is the same. But yeah, New Age has still co-opted the image of Buddhism too much.

 

Really depends. Bor-Mullet summed it up well. The most classical Buddhists believe that souls are temporary constructs as much as any other thing in the universe. So, Hindus and Buddhists are kind of unique in that there are several different Buddhists and there are thousands upon thousands of different kinds of Hindus. So, basically, gay people would be, in theory, viewed as cursed by something they did in their past lives according to some of these folks. But others would be okay with it and, dare I say it, even celebrate it. Hinduism confuses people because we often get the conservative versions that believe in a strict class/caste system, whereas some of them are more progressive and accepting. That's the issue when you have a religion that's based on universalism. Some of the fundamentalists will be jerks about it, but the more accepting, kind ones will like it.

Fundamentally, we find that some New Agers, the conservative ones, hate trans and nonb folks, whereas the more progressive ones are accepting of it. New Age as a general rule is often taught be a simplification of Western astrology, European pagan ideals, and Native American folklore. But in actuality, it's meant to be a simplification of Hinduism...the more non-dualistic, universalist form that holds that every individual and indeed every atom of this universe is divine. Some would all that blasphemous or sacrilegious. But I call it reasonable.

There's a good book about this called Nonduality. The debate is whether Hinduism began as a polytheistic religion that believed in many gods...or if they were always nondualistic. The theory is that all those gods are just metaphors for the human condition and sapient kind in general being evolved and enlightened. That's what means to be nondual.

In contrast, Buddhism, in its earliest form, would say that the soul is completely temporary like any other molecular structure in this universe. That may suck to some people, but I actually believe that's intriguing. It's more of a nontheistic (neither atheistic nor theistic) philosophy in that format. Later forms of Buddhism, in contrast, became more religious. They even held that the Tibetan gods and others converted to Buddhism, the philosophy, which is interesting, and those Buddhists would believe in a more traditional version of reincarnation where the soul is actually a permanent construct that could incarnate multiple times. At any rate, Ghost pretty much said the same thing I did and I just read it. Ha ha.

It's important to note that India actually allows both same-sex marriage legally and one to legally correct their genders without surgeries. We often get the ridiculous, nationalist form of Hinduism that assassinated Mr. Gandhi (since he wanted to get along with the Pakistanis).

However, if you start talking about Jains, it gets interesting. They are Dharmic, as well, but they have been critiqued as an emo religion that believes that karma can never be removed from individuals in subsequent lives. Even so, they are often very kind people who believe in eating veggies and they spend a ****-ton of money on helping Hindus and Buddhists clean and take care of their temples, architecture, and shrines.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_...entity-expression_by_country_or_territory.svg

Anyhow, as you can see here, generally countries don't have a problem with trans people legally correcting their gender after surgeries and hormones. But only about 50 countries allow trans folks to correct their genders without surgeries. Some people are just mean in two certain countries (one of which is predominantly Buddhist) because they force all gay people to be trans and have a surgery when clearly most gay people would not prefer that. Putin in Russia, for example, was allowing some rich people with trans kids to have surgeries, but he would not allow that for most people because he's an ******* despot who's quite insecure.

 

Correction: India has not legalized same-sex marriage, @SateleNovelist11 . Gay sex was illegal until 2018.

 

Oh, did I say that? My bad. I'm sorry. I was really tired. I just woke up, and I didn't mean to say that last night. Lol. I remember the map said that It's mainly legalized in the Americas, Europe, Australia, New Zealand, and South Africa. I haven't looked at that map too often since 2016.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-...World_marriage-equality_laws_(up_to_date).svg

The sad truth is that just because something is legal somewhere doesn't mean it's accepted, of course. Brazil has a great deal of homophobia and transphobia, and that means that trans folks and other LGBTQ folks are in danger due to the hate down there.

Personally, I think the New Age stuff can be a bad thing when it's based on hatred. To me, I get really concerned when certain New Agers get arrogant and act like there are only two genders and two orientations, and that makes me concerned about LGBTQ folks in general.

At the same time, I have no problem with the New Age or universalist folks who are neither racist nor prejudiced against those who are different, since they have the decency not to look down on others.

 

Honestly, while Anna's Analysis in recent years has influenced my skepticism of New Age leaders, the main reason I dislike the racist versions of New Ageism is due to how white New Agers in the American South and some in Europe will ape Himmler in their ideologies. Himmler was a pretty nasty fellow, and if you look at his hatred of gay people, it's easy to see why he was repugnant.

Back in 2016, I met New Agers in east Dallas who actually believed that Hitler did nothing wrong. They were quite anti-Semitic. I appreciated members of the JCF in 2017 helping me to discern just how Himmler-like certain New Age folks could be. Otherwise, it would have taken me a bit sooner to realize it.

The most dangerous people in the New Age Movement are not cooky due to their belief in aliens. But it's very telling that they always say that aliens made sculptures and pyramids for certain civilizations and not for white people. Just a bunch of racist bums pretending to be hardass and gangster, frankly.

 

Eh, the ancient aliens movement makes the same claims about European structures. This is them talking about if aliens built Newgrange, for example. It's a really quick check to see what places they've talked about, and plenty are in Europe. If anything, what makes it seem odd is because they talk about things in so many non-European societies and despite non-European populations representing a majority, most other things stay very heavily focused on Europe.

So the "they only say aliens built things not built by white people" line comes from people that didn't bother to look at what a lot of the Ancient Aliens types claim, and then gets repeated from there.

 

In people's defense, there are 18 seasons of Ancient Aliens.

 

I tend to believe (or at least I'm open to believe) that some of the ancient sites around the world, are in fact far older than what archeologists and historians say. I believe many have been reconstructed and rebuilt in modern times, by newer civs. I think much/some of our history is still heavily influenced by a euro-western worldview, where all of history has to align with that story.

I think there could have been a loosely inter-connected pre-ice age 'global' civilization with the same symbolism, math-language, techniques, stories, myths, far older shared histories, and perhaps even trade or commerce in some limited way.

I don't think any site is something that couldn't be built by humans, even if some seem to be built using lost tech or techniques that we have no way of reproducing today. Even the more wondrous and unbelievable ones. If aliens had built them, I'd expect a lot more sophistication and precision (even if now destroyed and in ruin) and perhaps even materials used. Humans are pretty smart. And it seems clear to my that many of our myths originate from some source far older than what we currently know.

There's so much of human history missing, so who knows what happened prior to the last 10,000 years or so.

 

Well we know what happened just before that because it was documented, at least for 10,000 BC

A big chunk of it is things that have been stripped of their context or incorrectly emphasized (flood stories don't necessitate global floods, for example) mixed with bad science and bad history. I think language, such as it is, is a big marker that there wasn't something global,but can point to some interesting connections that are generally more regional.