Dr. Rupert Sheldrake Brings Science to Spiritual Practices |376|

Christianity is uniquely singled out for opprobrium on this forum,
Because the only kind of Christianity I know about it the hard Calvinist southern U.S. kind, I very much appreciate the information you provide here regarding other kinds.

That being said, the Moderators and Administrators here are very, very fair and judicious with their powers. The fact that I am still here is testament to that.

I wish you wouldn't be so hard on them Gabriel. Consider how arbitrary and intolerant most other forums are.
 
That being said, the Moderators and Administrators here are very, very fair and judicious with their powers
That hasn't been my experience and the people concerned are aware of the reasons. My current observations are not based on previous moderating caprices, but the low hanging fruit Christianity continues to represent for Skeptiko. It's an easy shot, a prejudice so deeply held it barely registers and complaints are regarded with shock and even disappointment. Imagine the same being said of Jews? Replace each barb against Christians with "Jew" and decide whether Skeptiko holds up as following psi data or places it within the Dark Web.

I'm not claiming special exemptions for Christianity, quite the opposite. I'd like to see throwaway comments debated to their logical conclusion whenever the subject arises. They won't be because it's easier to claim someone is proselytising than take on board their objections as valid.
 
You're missing the point. Not only do I not have any interest in extolling the virtues if the Christian faith, I don't think my faith has any bearing on most of the subjects that used to concern this forum and podcasts. I don't put everything through some kind of Christian litmus test to see if it passes muster, it's the commentary that continually compares the marvels of whatever psychic or religious discipline to the poverty of the Christian model. You're completely free to do so, but it's the kind of casual prejudice that stains the debate. Sheldrake's spirituality triggered Alex's latest polemic, but it would be hard to find a podcast on any subject that failed to mention how stupid Christians are at some point.

I don't take such comments seriously, and certainly aren't offended by them, but it does shed light on the agendas playing out beneath the claims of open mindedness and following the data. It's no different to the blind spots of atheist materialists, and exposing them equally unlikely to lead to change.
Nobody can be totally open-minded. We all have our prejudices - the best we can do is let everyone speak so the various biases average out.

BTW I rarely have any contact with Alex, and I have no say in who he interviews, so there certainly isn't an 'agenda' at work!

My main beef about Christianity, is that it carries along a lot of texts that many churches simply ignore because they are embarrassingly awful. However, once a person considers themselves Christian, they become vulnerable to others who say, "Call yourself a Christian, but you simply ignore Leviticus and other passages (not all in the OT)".

Indeed this sort of happened to me at University - a group of Christians obsessed about the fact that God could not forgive anyone's sins unless Jesus paid the price instead! However in my case that nonsense helped to propel me out of the church!

I think something similar applies to Islam.

David
 
Would you be so kind as to help me understand it? :)

I would!... if that were necessary, which it is not, because you've grokked and responded to it in your follow-up. :)

I took no issue with the contents of your earlier post (which raises some important questions), all I was, well, "complaining" about was that you hadn't addressed my point, which was that, as you quote here:

You wrote: "I didn't hear him say anything remotely like "Christian ritual works experientially for me therefore the Christian belief structure is true".

I just wanted to make sure you weren't saying that Rupert implied anything like this, because it seems to me that he did not, and that he instead went out of his way to say things like (paraphrased), "It's not necessary to go to church or to engage in Christian rituals to be a Christian - I just personally find those things to be helpful".

I think Sheldrake definitely implied that the two things (belief system and rituals) are interconnected

Perhaps, but implying that two things are interconnected is a far cry from explicitly saying that the latter entails the former. I'm just encouraging... a little caution (in that which we attribute to a guest of the show).

Bottom line, I think these are the possibilities:

1) there is only one belief system that has the Ultimate Truth (I see there are many Christians in this Forum who will no doubt say it's Christianity); obviously its ritual works because it addresses its "Source of Truth" and hence the rituals of other religions etc cannot work (so any reports to the contrary are delusions or lies)

A very slight (and very familiar) variation on this, from an especially conservative Christian perspective, is that all other supposed religions are the outcome of demonic "inspiration", as are all other rituals advocated for by those religions, and that these rituals only "work" by the power of darkness masquerading as light.

2) Since rituals referring to mutually contradictory beliefs work (according to the people who perform them), all these beliefs must be right - which is logically impossible

3) Whatever is behind reality (a single God?? Many spirits, some of whom are tricksters?) deliberately perform(s) "miracles"/make people feel ecstatically good etc, even if they perform the rituals of a religion which has nothing to do with the Truth (say, Scientology - or maybe there's a scientologist here who can correct me if I'm wrong :)), just to confuse mankind (which would be more understandable if there was more than one God, unless he enjoys playing with humans).

4) none of the above is the case, it's all in our minds - as long as we believe in something 'spiritual', no matter if it's true or not, we feel uplifted and some even experience (bring about??) what is commonly referred to as 'miracles'.

A variation on #4 (or maybe just a rewording of it) is that the Divine responds to sincere attempts, or even to just formal attempts according to well-recognised and well-rehearsed patterns, to reach out to Him/Her/Them via whichever religious/spiritual/faith tradition one chooses, even though the ultimate truth lies in none of those traditions (to which I just know you will immediately ask the very pertinent question, "Well then what would the ultimate truth be in that scenario?!").

(Feel free to add possibilities to this list.)

Perhaps another one is something of a combination of #s 1 and 4: there is an ultimate truth with its own set of associated rituals, but the Divine is gracious enough to respond to, or at least to permit the working of, rituals from other traditions - perhaps to a greater or lesser extent depending on how close to the truth those other traditions are, or how sincere the practitioner is.

So, I would have liked Rupert Sheldrake to tell us which of these scenarios is the one that he considers most likely, given that spiritual practices appear to work for believers in wildly different metaphysics. And I'm sorry, it's not true that all religions/belief systems are about the same Ultimate Truth - Sheldrake recognised it himself, by explicitly saying that his world view is very different from that of Buddhism etc. I understand that he wanted to be ecumenical and respectful but I prefer to call a spade a spade :)

Yes, it would be an interesting question to ask him.
 
it seems to me that he did not, and that he instead went out of his way to say things like (paraphrased), "It's not necessary to go to church or to engage in Christian rituals to be a Christian - I just personally find those things to be helpful".

A variation on #4 (or maybe just a rewording of it) is that the Divine responds to sincere attempts, or even to just formal attempts according to well-recognised and well-rehearsed patterns, to reach out to Him/Her/Them via whichever religious/spiritual/faith tradition one chooses, even though the ultimate truth lies in none of those traditions (to which I just know you will immediately ask the very pertinent question, "Well then what would the ultimate truth be in that scenario?!").
(...)
Perhaps another one is something of a combination of #s 1 and 4: there is an ultimate truth with its own set of associated rituals, but the Divine is gracious enough to respond to, or at least to permit the working of, rituals from other traditions - perhaps to a greater or lesser extent depending on how close to the truth those other traditions are, or how sincere the practitioner is.

Thank you Laird, some very good suggestions for additional scenarios there, or rather I would say one additional scenario, as the two you described seem quite similar to me (please feel free to disagree). Of course it's problematic to speculate that the divine would only respond to sincere attempts though, because it necessarily implies that "the Divine" is not arbitrary and always knows perfectly who is sincere and who isn't (it's like saying that the Divine is necessarily good because it's the Divine; quite a dogmatic assumption there, frankly).

Another thing that would need to be addressed is this: if the Divine had wished to show us which tradition/belief is right, or at any rate closer to the Ultimate Truth, it could have done so by "responding" to its believers clearly, consistently and incontrovertibly. But this is clearly not the case. Why "the Divine" is so "mysterious" is one of the main sources of puzzlement for me (and would suggest that 1) it does not have the same moral standards as us, hence it is ethically incomprehensible to us and/or 2) it is not particularly affected by our suffering and confusion and it is following its own unfathomable agenda, which we cannot fathom because it's not ultimately 'about us'...but I am not going to open that can of worms here :-))

Just wanted to ask you if you could point me to some quotes which show that Sheldrake (I quote you) "went out of his way to say things like (paraphrased), "It's not necessary to go to church or to engage in Christian rituals to be a Christian - I just personally find those things to be helpful" because i couldn't find any in the transcript! I'd be interested in being shown how selective my attention might have been in listening to the interview :-)
 
Thank you Laird, some very good suggestions for additional scenarios there, or rather I would say one additional scenario, as the two you described seem quite similar to me (please feel free to disagree).

Oh, I totally agree - that's why I qualified them with "A very slight [...] variation" and "maybe just a rewording". [Edit: oops, I see I've misunderstood you!]

Of course it's problematic to speculate that the divine would only respond to sincere attempts though, because it necessarily implies that "the Divine" is not arbitrary and always knows perfectly who is sincere and who isn't

Why is that problematic (as speculation)? And if it is problematic, then maybe we could speculate that sincerity plays only a part in it? I did offer another possibility: that formalised ritual too might be effective aside from sincerity.

(it's like saying that the Divine is necessarily good because it's the Divine; quite a dogmatic assumption there, frankly)

Well, I use "the Divine" to refer to a Being which is good by definition (admittedly, a definition which could be debated) so if you want to talk about a Being which is not (wholly) good, then perhaps we could use different words?

Another thing that would need to be addressed is this: if the Divine had wished to show us which tradition/belief is right, or at any rate closer to the Ultimate Truth, it could have done so by "responding" to its believers clearly, consistently and incontrovertibly. But this is clearly not the case. Why "the Divine" is so "mysterious" is one of the main sources of puzzlement for me (and would suggest that 1) it does not have the same moral standards as us, hence it is ethically incomprehensible to us and/or 2) it is not particularly affected by our suffering and confusion and it is following its own unfathomable agenda, which we cannot fathom because it's not ultimately 'about us'...but I am not going to open that can of worms here :))

How about (3) Divinity is opposed by a malignancy which interferes with that which would otherwise be reliable?

Just wanted to ask you if you could point me to some quotes which show that Sheldrake (I quote you) "went out of his way to say things like (paraphrased), "It's not necessary to go to church or to engage in Christian rituals to be a Christian - I just personally find those things to be helpful" because i couldn't find any in the transcript! I'd be interested in being shown how selective my attention might have been in listening to the interview :)

OK. I think the part of the interview that I was remembering was this - from the transcript (emboldening mine):

"So, for me, it’s not a question of, is this all totally true and is every word of the Bible literally true? I don’t think it is, but for me the question is, is taking part in these rituals, this communal singing, all of which are spiritual practices, these collective spiritual practices, is this helpful or is it not helpful? I do find it helpful. There are some people who don’t find it helpful, and that’s fair enough, I don’t think it’s necessary for salvation or for connecting with the ultimate. I’m not saying that at all.

[...]

So, for me, the issue is not whether it’s true or whether every aspect of the Bible is true, but whether being part of and connecting with this tradition is helpful or not, and I do find it’s helpful. I find it roots me in the local sacred place, it roots me in sacred time, it gives me a sense of special time on Sunday as being not just all about emails and work, another dimension to life and to collective practice.

Of course, you can have that without going to church, of course you can. I’m not saying everyone ought to go to church, I’m just saying that for me it’s a valuable practice and I think it’s a valuable practice for a lot of other people too, and it might be a valuable practice for people who’ve never thought of giving it a try, it might be worth giving it a try
".
 
Last edited:
Well, I use "the Divine" to refer to a Being which is good by definition (admittedly, a definition which could be debated) so if you want to talk about a Being which is not (wholly) good, then perhaps we could use different words?

No problem with your using "the Divine" in that sense, now that it's clear what you mean by it, of course, thanks for clarifying. For me it only meant something like "Supernatural/spiritual being(s) or principle", in other words just a "higher power" (no doubt due to English not being my mother tongue).

Thanks for the quotes, I did not think he was referring specifically to being a Christian in those quotes, but simply to feeling uplifted in general, regardless of whether one's religion is Christianity or not, but I certainly may be wrong of course. I interpreted his use of the words "helpful" and valuable in the sense of "helpful in making you feel better", rather than "helpful in order to be a Christian".

I will unfortunately have to suspend my participation in this discussion for a few days due to family issues (my elderly mother having to undergo surgery)...fingers crossed all will go well and I'll be back here relatively soon.....
 
Thanks for the quotes, I did not think he was referring specifically to being a Christian in those quotes, but simply to feeling uplifted in general, regardless of whether one's religion is Christianity or not, but I certainly may be wrong of course. I interpreted his use of the words "helpful" and valuable in the sense of "helpful in making you feel better", rather than "helpful in order to be a Christian".

Well, and I might also have paraphrased a little loosely.

I will unfortunately have to suspend my participation in this discussion for a few days due to family issues (my elderly mother having to undergo surgery)...fingers crossed all will go well and I'll be back here relatively soon.....

Best of success with your mother's surgery!
 
Anything goes, really, as long as it works (ie, any religion or belief in something 'spiritual'). I suppose even belief in the Tooth Fairy or Unicorns or Father Christmas would be perfectly OK if it worked, based on this approach - why not? So, I don't mean to be dismissive of what Dr Sheldrake said (or even of people who believe in Unicorns or in the Tooth Fairy) but, like Alex, I don't find this approach intellectually satisfactory.

I look forward to reading through the rest of this thread, but I was definitely stopped here in complete agreement!

I'd go one step further actually, not only is it intellectually unsatisfactory, I find it socially irresponsible.

I find it to be part of the problem ultimately, a quick fix, like the many others offered by the pharmacopeia of our culture. I'm not saying don't sing, don't pray, don't read and write inspiring scripts, yes yes, please do! Let's just stop basing them on fantasy perhaps, b/c it's really not working. We have sufficient evidence to support living in fantasy land and perpetuating fantasy leads to a culture so disconnected from reality they can't survive 3 days outside their status quo without serious crisis.
 
I'd go one step further actually, not only is it intellectually unsatisfactory, I find it socially irresponsible.
Prayer works or it doesn't, like dogs know when their owners are coming home, or they don't. You can measure it in all kinds of ways, how much better it makes the individual feel, whether it makes the group feel better, whether its influence on society is a net good, does it produce good art, can non-localised connections be formed of the kind Dean Radin researches? In what way is that socially irresponsible?
 
This is what I don't understand if something works, why does there have to be a placebo distinction? I'f i'm taking a homeopathic remedy, which according to skeptics has no evidence and if it does work it is merely a plaecbo?
You see how stupid that sounds? The point is it worked regardless if it was a placebo or not. It worked!
I suppose the point here, is that the placebo effect is an indication that the mind can cure itself, and maybe that some sort of field of goo intention travels with matter prepared in certain ways.

David
 
I find this all so redundant sometimes, its like the serpent eating its own tail, on one hand you have Sheldrake who I admire who seemingly takes the bible literally.....sigh.....accepts Jesus as his savior (presupposition) also stepping out of the box of overrated half truth science of materialism.......
Well what do you do - if someone you admire seems to go off at a tangent, do you:

a) Follow him without question because he knows best.

b) Discuss with him about why he has taken that approach.

The actual podcast discussion didn't get heated - only some of the discussion here on the forum.

David
 
Yes, but you aren't a Christian! A Christian is supposed to believe the Bible, even though they only believe in parts of it! Christians accept the whole Bible - both testaments, so that includes (modern translation):



Or take your pick from this:

https://www.openbible.info/topics/

I mean people can and do quote the Bible as Christians!

David

David, really! You can't set up a definition of a Christian. A Christian has to be whoever says they are a Christian. All we can say is that some Christians do/say this or that. And some who identify as Christian hold views that we imagine would be utterly repellant to Jesus (historic or mythic).
Some Christians will not esteem the OT over the teachings of Jesus. Others will. Some Christians are Bible-centric and others are mystical. Some Christians are devoted to a dogma and others have but a passing regard to dogma.

In essence Christian is about as useful a collective noun as Scientist or Democrat.
 
Prayer works or it doesn't, like dogs know when their owners are coming home, or they don't. You can measure it in all kinds of ways, how much better it makes the individual feel, whether it makes the group feel better, whether its influence on society is a net good, does it produce good art, can non-localised connections be formed of the kind Dean Radin researches? In what way is that socially irresponsible?

I'm not saying prayer is socially irresponsible, I'm saying teaching children (or anyone) to live in a fantasy-based reality is irresponsible.
 
I'm not saying prayer is socially irresponsible, I'm saying teaching children (or anyone) to live in a fantasy-based reality is irresponsible.
What denotes fantasy? Believing consciousness survives death? Biological systems learn from previous biological systems? Prayer centres people and something bigger gets to run their universe? Where does your personal bullshit meter become someone else's profound wisdom?
 
The actual podcast discussion didn't get heated - only some of the discussion here on the forum.
Speak for yourself. I'm challenging group prejudice that lays claim to common sense. Isn't that what this forum is supposed to be all about? No need to get hot under the collar because someone's handing you your arse on a plate. ;)
 
I must disagree. Rupert implies his starting point is the same as yrs. he's rational, reasonable and a man of science... he's just fallen under the coltish spell that Christianity (or any religion) can weave.

For crying out loud, Alex: he's just fallen under the coltish (sic) spell that Christianity (or any religion) can weave, you say. But if one reads the Kindle sampler of his book, it makes it plain that he's not a cultist. If anything, he's an ecumenist. His wife teaches spiritual practices, in which he occasionally takes part, to all-comers, regardless of religion. He recognises, as one of his Hindu teachers told him, that all religions properly understood and practised lead to God; and since he was brought up a Christian, probably best for him to follow Christianity.

It's not as if he is in any sense a fundamentalist. Nor, I don't think, is he saying that he follows Christianity solely because some of its various practices make him feel better. They do make him feel better, to be sure, but I think his understanding of religion in general, and Christianity in particular, is nuanced.

Consider this: Tai chi (as I know from personal experience) can help people feel better, regardless of which religion (or none) they follow. The fact that underlying it is the idea of chi arising in Chinese religion and culture doesn't mean I buy into the whole nine yards. Many people feel similarly about the distinction between yoga (which I personally find hard) and Hinduism, or meditation (which I also find hard, preferring contemplation, as it can be done anywhere anytime, even when doing other things) and Buddhism. Am I right and anyone who disagrees wrong? Of course not -- each to his own.

What I think he's saying is that most if not all of us have spiritual impulses, and may desire some kind of outlet to express those, not necessarily arising from within the same religious tradition. Many (not all) of his practices do arise from within the same Christian tradition, because, given his background, they are familiar and he feels comfortable with them. Nonetheless, he's hardly a gullible believer and still less is he a proselytiser. All I think he's saying is that given that most or all of us have spiritual needs, where should we look to satisfy them? One can do worse than look to the traditions of the society in which one was raised, but if that doesn't satisfy, then by all means look to other traditions or parts of different traditions that do. I think he knows that any such practices are just one way of satisfying those needs, and not suitable for everyone.

I probably consider myself mostly a Christian, for example, and find certain common practices and attitudes of other traditions either unappealing or downright scary. But I don't, once again, buy into the whole nine yards. I don't go to church, don't believe many of the doctrines, and have my own particular synthesis. It's not in my book necessary that Jesus was resurrected, though for many other people it is, and that's fair enough.

I find it puzzling and somewhat disturbing for you to dismiss him in such terms. I contacted him once about climate change and he's a believer, unlike me, but have I held that against him? By no means. He's entitled to his opinion , as am I mine, and I still hold him in high regard.
 
Last edited:
given that most or all of us have spiritual needs, where should we look to satisfy them? One can do worse than look to the traditions of the society in which one was raised,
Well said.

Imagine this guy...

monk-meditating-at-angkor-wat-temple-cambodia-matteo-colombo.jpg


Shunning the thousands of years of tradition infused into him since birth, and suddenly adopting Appalachian speaking-in-tounges Calvinist Pentecostalism like this...

140216095220-jamie-coots-restricted-horizontal-large-gallery.jpg



That would be patently absurd. But somehow, the exact opposite transformation makes good sense.

Herp Derp.
 
Back
Top