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

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.


Well, let's be honest, with the specific examples you use..... the exact opposite transformation does make good sense.... for the lower insurance premiums, if nothing else.
 
Last edited:
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?

Fantasy as in Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, the Tooth fairy, which was the quote I replied to. Speculation is not fantasy and I can blindly follow someone else's bullshit if I want. I'm not saying it should be against the law, I'm saying it's socially irresponsible, b/c when children become adolescents it causes them pain and cognitive dissonance that sometimes leads to real problems on multiple fronts--like mistrust of all authority, disillusionment with society and nihilism, drug abuse, and it messes with their bullshit meter for life.
 
Fantasy as in Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, the Tooth fairy, which was the quote I replied to.
We went to church at Easter and I gobbled the chocolate afterwards. The Easter Bunny was not part of my pantheon. Tooth fairy ditto, though I vaguely remember getting sixpence for putting a lost tooth under the pillow. Santa Claus I certainly believed in as did my kids. No trauma ensued from his absence, I don't remember when I heard he wasn't a flesh and blood figure. Probably six or seven years of age, and I still got presents which assuaged whatever sense of disappointment that ensued.

I seriously don't get the link between them and nihilism. Maybe my parents didn't play up their reality sufficiently. Ghosts and spirits were certainly part of their world, not in an ever present intrusive way but occasional interlopers in the life and death of the family. They maintained a traditional Catholic faith with an almost animistic spirituality, which is often mistaken for superstition or idolatry. It isn't that, the two worlds were not mutually exclusive and they were very keen on education, too. I identify with Sheldrake's position as an absentee from Christian practice for many years, and an enthusiastic exponent of the rock and roll lifestyle. There was definitely an existential gap that was not filled by anything from the secular world, and was not sentiment, or wishful thinking but a sense of acceptance and knowing. Sheldrake is an exponent of practice as a means of beginning knowledge, which sounds like Mother Theresa's insistence that first one must accept, then one can believe. That's in direct contrast to the blank canvas of empiricism that marks scientific gnosis. It isn't blank of course, or real knowledge, but that's the pretence that's maintained.
 
Could you be a little more specific? I'm genuinely interest.
There are traditional Catholics, modernising liberals, cultural Catholics, cafeteria Catholics. You have to remember that Catholicism in Britain could get you hanged, drawn and quartered as an enemy of the state, and can still keep you from public office. The church hid out for a few hundred years and grew accretions of its own. These are not doctrinally correct in the strictest terms, but won't get you accused of heresy. Or at least didn't, converts from Protestantism take a dimmer view of such laxity and they're growing in number.
 
continued... an example would be ghosts and apparitions. The official line is any such entities are demonic, and require exorcism. However a blessing is the first course of action, which is a tacit acceptance that houses can contain spirits, entities, whatever, that are not objectively evil but are causing residents distress. I can't speak for the efficacy of exorcism or blessings with holy water, but the latter are not uncommon. When I was a child it was fairly routine that a priest would bless a recently occupied house, I recall a friend's family's house being doused with holy water. This may have been because the house gained an unfortunate reputation from the dubious activities of a former resident, all the way through to shadows being seen and bedclothes pulled. It represented a symbolic cleansing of whatever misfortune and fallen the place or its inhabitants.

There were more informal symbols, signs of death which Fenwick has also spoken about, loud bangs, rappings and the like, which were not as continuous as poltergeists as well as specific family signifiers. The literature is full of such accounts not just in British Catholic houses. It's a lengthy and fascinating subject with many dimensions, from the dissolution of monasteries and hooded figures, through penal times, to something like cultural morphic resonance carried through a family line.
 
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.
Nobody seems to address my real point.

If you support an organisation whose core texts need to be selectively ignored, you open up the possibility that other supporters - maybe younger ones - will be radicalised by others who tell them to take the ignored texts fully seriously. This means taking Leviticus 20:13 seriously:

If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their blood guiltiness is upon them.

Either that means what it says, or it should not be part of Christian revered texts!

This isn't just a theoretical point, it is the problem with modern Islam - its texts mean vastly different things to different people - the result is ISIS!

A few centuries ago, people read the same Bible (or at least same meaning) as people do now, and did terrible things as a result. Gabriel can call such comments Christian Bashing, but that changes nothing.

David
 
Micheal Paterson said:
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.

Christianity grants it's believers/adherents a Guardian Angel sometimes also called a Holy Spirit. The subtle prodding and intuitive guidance of this Angel can be felt by it's charge if he or she is perceptive. Life will not be easy for a true Christian. You certainly will not be permitted to wallow in an autumn leaf size pile of money with no regard for so many of God's children who have not enough to eat in this hard world. Your angel will also pester your conscience if you are seeking unfair advantage in business or if you might be contemplating cheating on your faithful and trusting spouse.You may not enjoy Christianity very much at all but Jesus offers a bit of consolation: "He who hateth his life in this world shall preserve it for life eternal." (John 12:25) I guess it's mostly a matter of what a person is happy with. I think life on this Earth is hard regardless of a person's wealth and Heaven forbid I should have to repeat it. I anticipate something better.
 
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?
In my opinion the benefits of prayer are proven and conclusive. Here defining prayer as inward contemplative connection with a good and higher conscious being.
 
Gabriel can call such comments Christian Bashing, but that changes nothing.
I refer you to my previous point that expecting an individual to take responsibility everything done in the name of any belief system is unrealistic. Raising huge amounts of money for charity, building hospitals, schools, social welfare and the rest, Christianity is the cultural model of western society. You can't ignore that because hypocrisy has been a recurring thread of human nature. Compare Sheldrake's experience of Hinduism to his Christian upbringing. As for Leviticus, how does that square with those without sin casting the first stone?

Scripture bombing and literalism are not part of my tradition, which has always emphasised the exegesis of scripture. One priest at my church is extremely knowledgeable about middle eastern pre-history, I'd guess he has a doctorate in the subject. He goes to considerable lengths to explain the context of a quote. Who was fighting with whom at that point, what one side represented, why the culture allowed them to believe what they did, the context of a biblical passage in its entirety. That's completely different from reading a text unalloyed by the history and beliefs of the ancient world.

Christian bashing is a recurring theme, and anyone so inclined can play bingo with the times Alex mentions the stupidity of Christians out of the blue. I can accept he doesn't mean people like me, or he does mean people like me and complain until I'm erased from Skeptiko's Akashic record :)
 
... converts from Protestantism take a dimmer view of such laxity and they're growing in number.
Where will they go if you guys start ordaining woman or, God forbid, performing same-sex marriages? :)

continued... an example would be ghosts and apparitions. The official line is any such entities are demonic, and require exorcism. However a blessing is the first course of action, which is a tacit acceptance that houses can contain spirits, entities, whatever, that are not objectively evil but are causing residents distress. I can't speak for the efficacy of exorcism or blessings with holy water, but the latter are not uncommon. When I was a child it was fairly routine that a priest would bless a recently occupied house, I recall a friend's family's house being doused with holy water. This may have been because the house gained an unfortunate reputation from the dubious activities of a former resident, all the way through to shadows being seen and bedclothes pulled. It represented a symbolic cleansing of whatever misfortune and fallen the place or its inhabitants.

There were more informal symbols, signs of death which Fenwick has also spoken about, loud bangs, rappings and the like, which were not as continuous as poltergeists as well as specific family signifiers. The literature is full of such accounts not just in British Catholic houses. It's a lengthy and fascinating subject with many dimensions, from the dissolution of monasteries and hooded figures, through penal times, to something like cultural morphic resonance carried through a family line.

Thanks for taking the time to expand my perspective. Totes appreciated.

I have recently wondered if folk Christianity might not represent a good living (or only recently deceased) magical and animistic tradition for those interested in such things to engage with, as opposed to trying to resurrect some kind of primal paganism or start from scratch. Even the European 'cunning folk' tradition that many contemporary witches claim as their inspiration was a wonderfully strange mix of folk magic and shamanic practice, but with a deeply Christian foundation.

That being said, I reckon people should follow whatever tradition (or none) they feel comfortable with.

I also wonder if western Protestantism's decline has anything to do with it's rejection of supernatural practical results, ie. helping people with their health, wealth and happiness through miracles. Maybe the fact that charismatic Protestantism is bucking the decline trend adds weight to this idea (not that I think this is a good thing).

Anyway, who knows.

Thanks again and I hope you're having a good Easter weekend.

P.S. Don't know if you caught it on TV, but didn't you think Broken was a beautifully thoughtful bit of apologetics (and with a great soundtrack)?
 
Last edited:
I refer you to my previous point that expecting an individual to take responsibility everything done in the name of any belief system is unrealistic. Raising huge amounts of money for charity, building hospitals, schools, social welfare and the rest, Christianity is the cultural model of western society. You can't ignore that because hypocrisy has been a recurring thread of human nature. Compare Sheldrake's experience of Hinduism to his Christian upbringing. As for Leviticus, how does that square with those without sin casting the first stone?
How does Leviticus square up to "He who is without sin, cast the first stone" - the obvious answer is that it can't possibly square up!

So why would you want to put both of those statements into one highly revered book? The evening service has one reading from the NT and one from the OT, presumably there is nothing to stop a priest selecting Leviticus 20:13 as the OT reading. In practice very few do I am sure, but if you look down the sweep of Christian history, clearly that was not always so. The corresponding verses in the Koran are presumably used far more frequently, which is why there are videos on the internet of men accused of being homosexual, being thrown off tall buildings. The contents of holy books have consequences.

The church in much earlier times threw out texts it was not happy with, so why should it be unacceptable for this to happen now? I guess the honest answer is that Christianity has become too ossified to dream of such a thing. Indeed, why should the Church not add to the Bible - perhaps using the insights obtainable from NDE accounts? Wouldn't the Bible be improved if Leviticus were removed, and some background information about NDE's incorporated instead (linking them to various Biblical accounts that probably relate to NDE's?

We live in a time when the problem with organised religion is particularly clear. When a Muslim is radicalised, I'll bet much of that is done using selected quotes from their literature, just as Christians were whipped up into a frenzy from time to time to go on Crusades, or burn witches.

I postulate that the problem is that no religion based on unchangeable texts can ever permanently improve itself, because it keeps the bad texts - still revered - waiting to lead more people astray.

It isn't, I think so much a question of hypocrisy, because I would bet that many Islamic terrorists are probably among the most pious people on this earth. The problem is that the texts they revere as holy, contain some particularly inhumane ideas - as does the Bible.

To me, we have to escape from organised religion for that reason - there is simply no way for religions to purify themselves (Buddhism might be an exception). Reform used to be seen as banishing accounts of paranormal phenomena, but I have obviously no beef with these - even the empty tomb - if the evidence is good. I am talking about the morality of what you find in the Bible. To me, a holy book can't be good in parts and vile in other parts!

BTW, I didn't engage in this conversation to bash you, or even Christians in general, I did it because I think organised religion is impossible to reform.

David
 
Where will they go if you guys start ordaining woman or, God forbid, performing same-sex marriages?
Won't happen. Married priests I can certainly envisage, the Ordinariate was a foothold into that world and there's precedent.
Even the European 'cunning folk' tradition that many contemporary witches claim as their inspiration was a wonderfully strange mix of folk magic and shamanic practice, but with a deeply Christian foundation.
Most stuff in the culture has a Christian foundation, no matter how much sceptics wish it were otherwise. I'm dubious of the claims of Wicca to a lineage, it was mostly middle class proto-hippies shaking their bits at the moon. There was certainly a wise woman rural culture. James I was witch obsessed, and puritans saw them everywhere. I see it more as a cottage industry, mothers passing the secrets of midwifery and herbal remedies on to their daughters, gang bangs with the devil only arriving with the thumb screws.

Protestantism's decline has anything to do with it's rejection of supernatural practical results
We can only understand medieval Christianity through academic texts like Eamon Duffy's "The Stripping of the Altars". These suggest Christianity (aka Catholicism) enjoyed almost universal support among ordinary people and its offices marked the turning year in a way they deeply identified with. Scriptural protest movements were highfalutin stuff, and would have remained the preserve of a few if Henry VIII hadn't put them centre stage in his bid to lose a wife and gain an heir. Robbing the church, i.e. the ordinary people of land and treasures they'd built for centuries was an attractive side effect of breaking from tradition. Tudor propaganda has since claimed the people were tired of an oppressive and corrupt church and saw Protestantism as its salvation, and while oppression and corruption must have existed, there's almost no serious research to support this claim. The church was hugely popular and people felt a sense of ownership that's been impossible to imagine since. So much was lost on the way, including the sacred feminine. One British art historian claimed 95% of domestic art was lost in the reformation, social cleansing of an extraordinary kind.

Don't know if you caught it on TV, but didn't you think Broken was a beautifully thoughtful bit of apologetics (and with a great soundtrack)?
I haven't watched TV for over 15 years, but occasionally catch an old documentary on YouTube. My wife is Anglican and hooked on Father Brown, so maybe Chesterton's apologetics will rub off.
 
Most stuff in the culture has a Christian foundation, no matter how much sceptics wish it were otherwise. I'm dubious of the claims of Wicca to a lineage, it was mostly middle class proto-hippies shaking their bits at the moon. There was certainly a wise woman rural culture. James I was witch obsessed, and puritans saw them everywhere. I see it more as a cottage industry, mothers passing the secrets of midwifery and herbal remedies on to their daughters, gang bangs with the devil only arriving with the thumb screws.

Yes, I broadly agree. But Europe did have a genuine Christianised shamanic tradition, albeit an informal one, until very recently. The 'tradition' mixed herbalism, trance, animist spirit work, divination and charm making to aid in solving a variety of everyday problems.... it was also explicitly Christian with scriptural verse and orthodox symbolism regularly being thrown into the mix for efficacy. These people existed in England until the early 20th century and still do in some parts of Italy. There has been some good academic research on this.

I see much of folk Catholicism as fitting into an animist/folk magic mould.... Saint worship, magic water and jewellery, healing icons, blessings, prayers, healing sites, visitations, etc. I personally feel there's some interesting ground to recover here.
 
I seriously don't get the link between them and nihilism.

An old Yogui tale:

“..once upon a time…the Devil was having great pleasure visiting the vast deserts of deception he possessed upon the Earth; he walked together with his servant. At one point his servant went astray and came back in horror: Master ! Master ! I have found a grain of Truth in the midst of the great desert of lies. Don’t worry, the Devil replied; men will soon institutionalize it “.
 
Those are typical arch-materialist analogies - I hope you do not feel you are becoming an arch-materialist!

David

I don't think so! I just find it useful to get to the most basic analogies which won't conjure as much automatic resistance to many. I'd include much of the Bible and 'life of Jesus' to be in this same boat, along with a large portion of our history and science. Deception at every level passed down by those who like dabbling in deception and have no problem to learn when/how they've been lied to all their lives and will happily pass down the lies indefinitely so they don't have to stand up against them, making lame excuses for their choices all the while.
 
I would bet that many Islamic terrorists are probably among the most pious people on this earth.
Often the opposite, apparently. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/nov/24/islamist-terrorists-drug-taking-jihadist

Buddhism might be an exception
Have you seen what's going on in Myanmar?

I think organised religion is impossible to reform.
I hope not, but you may be right.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top