|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: What do the voices say?
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
IMHO he's speaking purely from a naturalist(-ic?) point of view. He's not engaging the question of whether anything exists beyond the medical and observable data. Maybe so, maybe no. What he wants to know is what is going on in the brain and nervous system, and how does that translate into experience (and vice versa).
That's probably why it didn't bother me to read his stuff. He's not drawing any sort of metaphysical conclusions at all, he's just saying, "Look, when we do this, THAT happens, isn't that cool?"
I suspect if he had been able, he would have loved to get an EEG of Paul during the Damascus experience. Which would certainly have been very interesting, medically speaking, though it would tell us nothing about the spiritual stuff involved.
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
I agree that if it were not for the fall these diseases would not exist. But the mechanism is not therefore that God created them. Rather, they are an aspect of evil itself.
The way it works is that a hidden part of the evolutionary process is a constant influence from the spiritual world. Once evil was introduced into the system, it influences the way that things change in this world.
You appear to be implying that there are evolutionary "influences", or tendencies, or laws which are somehow autonomous, ie beyond God's control.
The orthodox view of God's omnipotence and omniscience is surely that if there is a law in the universe which dictates that evil, or the Fall, produces things like rabies, ebola etc, then God has decreed that law, and therefore he has (indirectly, if you like) created those malign micro-organisms.
I am aware that that the existence of repulsive creepy-crawlies (sorry about the technical terminology) is merely a sub-section of the whole theodicy issue which is raised by the OP, and is ultimately insoluble, but possibly concentrating on something as limited, concrete and specific is a way of pushing our understanding just a little bit further.
Who am I kidding? - I'm just angry that God causes/permits horrible diseases and I want to vent!
[ 08. August 2014, 06:00: Message edited by: Kaplan Corday ]
Posts: 3355 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
You appear to be implying that there are evolutionary "influences", or tendencies, or laws which are somehow autonomous, ie beyond God's control.
Yes, but God has voluntarily given up this control. He could take it back, but doesn't. This because freedom is so essential to Love.
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
ChastMastr
Shipmate
# 716
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
and is ultimately insoluble
How is it insoluble? To me it seems perfectly soluble. Due to sin the world is broken. This is one aspect of it. That brokenness is horrible, yes, and to be horrified and repelled and saddened by that is a correct perception of it. But God's love goes so far beyond that bad stuff (the Deeper Magic from Before the Dawn of Time) that He is bringing healing and redemption to this broken world to a degree we cannot imagine.
I'm not pretending that this is easy to accept, especially when one is hurting, but it doesn't seem intellectually hard to accept to me. But I have my own massive blind spots (which I also trust will be repaired someday) so it probably balances out.
quote:
Who am I kidding? - I'm just angry that God causes/permits horrible diseases and I want to vent!
That I can understand too. *HUG* for what it is worth.
--------------------
My essays on comics continuity: http://chastmastr.tumblr.com/tagged/continuity
Posts: 14068 | From: Clearwater, Florida | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ChastMastr:
To me it seems perfectly soluble.
Thanks for the hug, but do you really, seriously believe that the mystery of suffering is "perfectly soluble"?
If orthodox Christianity is correct, then most of humanity is going to suffer forever in hell.
If you believe in annihilationism, then a vast proportion of humanity is going to cease to exist after having been around just long enough to experience a lifetime of hunger, toil, disease and worse.
If you believe in universalism, what was the point of the (sometimes hideous and unspeakable) temporal and earthly agony before the eternal bliss?
I believe by faith that there are answers to these questions, but I don't believe that they are of the simplicity or obviousness evoked by the word "perfectly".
My daughter once did a unit in a Scripture Studies course on The Question of Suffering.
When asked by a friend whether she now knew the answer to the Question, she replied "No", at which a bright young man listening to the conversation announced, "I do!".
She pointedly refused to ask him to elaborate, and for years he was a standing joke in our family as The Boy Who Knew The Answer To The Question Of Suffering.
[ 08. August 2014, 09:47: Message edited by: Kaplan Corday ]
Posts: 3355 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
You appear to be implying that there are evolutionary "influences", or tendencies, or laws which are somehow autonomous, ie beyond God's control.
Yes, but God has voluntarily given up this control. He could take it back, but doesn't. This because freedom is so essential to Love.
That's right. Nor are they actually beyond God's control. He continually limits them. but He allows them for the sake of the greater good that is only possible with freedom.
The great thing is that it will all change as humanity comes to understand and cooperate with God - and freely return the love that He freely gives.
But yes it is true that none of this seems right when we are afflicted by the effects of evil. ![[Disappointed]](graemlins/disappointed.gif)
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ChastMastr
Shipmate
# 716
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
quote:
Originally posted by ChastMastr:
To me it seems perfectly soluble.
Thanks for the hug, but do you really, seriously believe that the mystery of suffering is "perfectly soluble"?
Intellectually, yes. Not emotionally. World meant to be perfect; world broken; broken = bad things; some values of bad = deeply horrific; God loves world; God does heap big juju to fix world; heap big juju involves God taking bad things onto Himself; God fixes world. That doesn't mean that our experience--or His--of those bad/horrific things is, well, not bad or horrific. To me this makes perfect intellectual sense--it's just horrible to experience horrible things (er, kind of by definition).
quote:
If orthodox Christianity is correct, then most of humanity is going to suffer forever in hell.
If I could be a Universalist I would be. But I don't believe it is supported by what I understand of my faith--nor, honestly, by the nature of free will. If we can reject God then... well, then we can do it. I believe He makes every effort beyond our wildest imaginings to get everyone in, even those who have never heard of Him, but if we have free will then it stands to reason that at least some people will give Him their permanent "no." I find that baffling (on an intellectual level) but then I look at myself when I'm being nasty and realize how capable I am myself of clinging to my own pride and nastiness. (And in a certain sense I think evil is itself irrational--it is the thing which should not be, the only thing which does not fit, a wrong turning of the will (not of intellect or even emotion), etc.)
quote:
If you believe in universalism, what was the point of the (sometimes hideous and unspeakable) temporal and earthly agony before the eternal bliss?
I don't believe in universalism (and if I am wrong in that I will be positively elated in the world to come!!), but even if I did... I genuinely don't understand the question here. As I understand it, the brokenness doesn't have a "point" in itself--that's part of what makes it broken. But God can still bring good out of that brokenness in various ways, just as He managed to take death itself and use it to redeem the world through Christ.
quote:
I believe by faith that there are answers to these questions, but I don't believe that they are of the simplicity or obviousness evoked by the word "perfectly".
Don't get me wrong, I don't at all want to... ah... come across in that way. I do think this is actually simple (see above) but I don't think it's easy to take emotionally especially when something horrid is going on. There are things in the world going on daily that I can't dwell on for too long (see pictures of, read detailed descriptions of, etc.) or they will emotionally (but not intellectually) freak me out.
quote:
She pointedly refused to ask him to elaborate, and for years he was a standing joke in our family as The Boy Who Knew The Answer To The Question Of Suffering.
![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif) I like that. ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
(I personally recommend Lewis' The Problem of Pain but you may have already read it and not found it helpful.)
--------------------
My essays on comics continuity: http://chastmastr.tumblr.com/tagged/continuity
Posts: 14068 | From: Clearwater, Florida | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
quote:
Originally posted by ChastMastr:
To me it seems perfectly soluble.
Thanks for the hug, but do you really, seriously believe that the mystery of suffering is "perfectly soluble"?
I agree with ChastMastr. The reason that it is "perfectly" soluble is that the entire system is brilliantly designed so that to extent that we cooperate with God - whether individually or collectively - the suffering goes away.
It is like the difference between floundering in the water and swimming. When we flounder everything is against us and life stinks. But when we swim, the exact same conditions come together magically and seem to do our bidding.
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
If orthodox Christianity is correct, then most of humanity is going to suffer forever in hell.
How can this be meaningful without an understanding of what hell is? The biblical descriptions are clearly metaphoric.
If we understand that unhappiness is inherent in evil (as opposed to divine retribution), I think the concept of hell makes more sense.
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ChastMastr
Shipmate
# 716
|
Posted
I, ah... think I should say that my position is not identical to Freddy's here. (Sorry, Freddy!)
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
The reason that it is "perfectly" soluble is that the entire system is brilliantly designed so that to extent that we cooperate with God - whether individually or collectively - the suffering goes away.
Um... no, I don't really believe this, sorry... ![[Hot and Hormonal]](icon_redface.gif)
quote:
It is like the difference between floundering in the water and swimming. When we flounder everything is against us and life stinks. But when we swim, the exact same conditions come together magically and seem to do our bidding.
I really don't believe this at all.
quote:
If we understand that unhappiness is inherent in evil (as opposed to divine retribution), I think the concept of hell makes more sense.
I think this is where we do have some overlapping in our beliefs; my own understanding of Hell (which might not be yours) is that it may be being immersed in God's Love but eternally (continuously) rejecting it, so that what should be joyful and wonderful is experienced as excruciatingly painful.
But the other stuff above? I'm terribly sorry, but no, we're really not on the same page there.
--------------------
My essays on comics continuity: http://chastmastr.tumblr.com/tagged/continuity
Posts: 14068 | From: Clearwater, Florida | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ChastMastr:
I, ah... think I should say that my position is not identical to Freddy's here. (Sorry, Freddy!)
Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that your explanation was the same as mine. I only meant that I agree with what you said.
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Penny S
Shipmate
# 14768
|
Posted
Leaving aside the creepy crawlies (and I find the entities involved in schistosomiasis a near thing to demonic in their lifestyle), God apparently allows the freewill of some human beings (or apparently human beings) to completely eradicate the free will of many other human beings without interference in any way.
As in the way that the will of some victims is modified and controlled so that they accept the malicious acts wreaked on them as their due.
So the free will of vicious psychopaths is worth more than the free will of ordinary nice people who want to get on with their lives in a peaceful way and in accord with God's ideas?
[ 08. August 2014, 11:15: Message edited by: Penny S ]
Posts: 5833 | Registered: May 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ChastMastr:
(I personally recommend Lewis' The Problem of Pain but you may have already read it and not found it helpful.)
It is undoubtedly a thoughtful and stimulating book ("Lay down this book and reflect for five minutes on the fact that all the great religions were long preached, and long practised, in a world without chloroform"), and Lewis had earned the right to write it (eg loss of his mother to abdominal cancer; brutal schools; horrors of the Western Front), but I think he later wondered whether it was a bit slick, and certainly a number of academics and theologians thought he had oversimplified the issues.
Posts: 3355 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
ChastMastr
Shipmate
# 716
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
Leaving aside the creepy crawlies (and I find the entities involved in schistosomiasis a near thing to demonic in their lifestyle)
Ah, forgot about them--not the creepy crawlies, but the demonic--since I believe it is not only humans who have abused our free will...
quote:
...God apparently allows the freewill of some human beings (or apparently human beings) to completely eradicate the free will of many other human beings without interference in any way.
As in the way that the will of some victims is modified and controlled so that they accept the malicious acts wreaked on them as their due.
This is indeed horrible, but I don't quite think that their free will in the sense meant here--on a spiritual level--is actually eradicated. I don't even believe the lobotomized lose their free will in that sense.
quote:
So the free will of vicious psychopaths is worth more than the free will of ordinary nice people who want to get on with their lives in a peaceful way and in accord with God's ideas?
Not more than, but equal to, yes. And of course--again, as I understand Christian theology--apart from God's grace, on a very deep level, none of us are "ordinary nice people." We all need salvation, the "nice people" and the psychopaths.
I think that re Lewis it may be "slick" in terms of not focusing on the emotional aspect as much as, say, his personal experiences in A Grief Observed, but on the intellectual side I have no problems with it.
I need to re-read my Lewis. It's been too long...
--------------------
My essays on comics continuity: http://chastmastr.tumblr.com/tagged/continuity
Posts: 14068 | From: Clearwater, Florida | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
There is no point. It's contingent. 'So.'. There is obviously no alternative.
And how can a psychopath or a nice person have free will?
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Belle Ringer
Shipmate
# 13379
|
Posted
I found Lewis's book unhelpful, shallow.
But back to voices, as I understand it the psychotic person who hears voices hears them often (and often multiple speakers), even constantly -- the agony is the voices won't shut up. You finally do what they tell you in the hope that will get them to shut up and give you peace. God (or God's angel) tends to say something once, in one voice (unless it's a choir singing to shepherds) or just often enough to catch your attention. That's hugely different from the harassment voice sufferers experience.
I ponder whether those who hear voices are missing some of the usual shield between us and spirits. I once asked a friend who worked in a schizophrenic treatment center - we hear about bad voices, are there good voices? "Oh yes!" Then he talked about a specific person who refers to his demons and his angels. The demons say terrible things that make you cringe and shudder in pain just hearing what they say, the angels say things so beautiful you cry from the overwhelming beauty of what they say.
Which doesn't answer my question about whether the voices are spirits rather than inventions of the mind, but is the answer I would expect if my pondered idea were true.
People report a mystical experience of overwhelming love, the difference being that's one time, or rarely repeated. If it were constant you couldn't do anything of real life but cry from the beauty.
Posts: 5830 | From: Texas | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
But back to voices, as I understand it the psychotic person who hears voices hears them often (and often multiple speakers), even constantly -- the agony is the voices won't shut up. You finally do what they tell you in the hope that will get them to shut up and give you peace. God (or God's angel) tends to say something once, in one voice (unless it's a choir singing to shepherds) or just often enough to catch your attention. That's hugely different from the harassment voice sufferers experience.
That's how I understand it as well.
There are some interesting studies about this phenomenon, such as this one by a psychologist at Mendocino State Hospital in California:
Wilson Van Dusen "The Presence of Spirits in Madness"
This study describes patients reporting exactly what you said - that most of the voices incessantly pestered and abused them, but that a few were very different.
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
Potentially relevant:
quote:
People suffering from schizophrenia may hear "voices" – auditory hallucinations – differently depending on their cultural context, according to new Stanford research.
In the United States, the voices are harsher, and in Africa and India, more benign, said Tanya Luhrmann, a Stanford professor of anthropology and first author of the article in the British Journal of Psychiatry.
The experience of hearing voices is complex and varies from person to person, according to Luhrmann. The new research suggests that the voice-hearing experiences are influenced by one's particular social and cultural environment – and this may have consequences for treatment.
Of course, culturally-dependent reactions to hearing voices tends to argue against those voices being external spirits, unless we posit that spirits are also bound by local norms and customs.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ChastMastr
Shipmate
# 716
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Of course, culturally-dependent reactions to hearing voices tends to argue against those voices being external spirits, unless we posit that spirits are also bound by local norms and customs.
They needn't mutually exclusive--I don't believe that all experiences of voices/visions/etc. are either genuinely paranormal or not--I'm sure it's a mixture, with some genuine perception, some illusions, perhaps even a combination of things in some cases, not to mention one's own interpretation of such things--and indeed cultural context may predispose someone to a better or worse relationship with such things. Not to mention that there are different spirits! In the west I think we're more paranoid about "spooky" or "uncanny" things as well--and sometimes play with things in ways that aren't healthy either (I will not experiment with a Ouija board, myself).
--------------------
My essays on comics continuity: http://chastmastr.tumblr.com/tagged/continuity
Posts: 14068 | From: Clearwater, Florida | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Of course, culturally-dependent reactions to hearing voices tends to argue against those voices being external spirits, unless we posit that spirits are also bound by local norms and customs.
That is really fascinating.
In the Swedenborgian system the spirits that surround a person are ones that are similar to the person. So Africans would be surrounded by African spirits and Americans by American spirits - that is, by Americans who are now spirits.
This would explain the cultural differences.
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Belle Ringer
Shipmate
# 13379
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
quote:
...unless we posit that spirits are also bound by local norms and customs.
In the Swedenborgian system the spirits that surround a person are ones that are similar to the person. So Africans would be surrounded by African spirits and Americans by American spirits - that is, by Americans who are now spirits.
This would explain the cultural differences.
And/or spirits "talk" to us in the "language" we speak. (Using the concepts of talk and language broadly.) Consider visions of Mary - not uncommon among Catholic vision-receivers, extremely rare for Protestants, Mary as communicator to us is not the language of most protestants. Dreams/visions of angels often include wings for those who expect wings, they would struggle to recognize "it was an angel visited me" without the wings.
Someone once told me (true? untrue?) the British knew Joan of Arc was not hearing from God because God speaks English and she heard God in French - of course God or any other spirits speak the language of the person communicated to! Unless the purpose of the communication is to broaden that person's awareness about communication itself or God's endorsement of other cultures.
[code]
[ 12. August 2014, 16:17: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
Posts: 5830 | From: Texas | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Belle Ringer
Shipmate
# 13379
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
In the Swedenborgian system the spirits that surround a person are ones that are similar to the person. So Africans would be surrounded by African spirits and Americans by American spirits - that is, by Americans who are now spirits.
This would explain the cultural differences.
Whoops, double post - different thought and not sure if it fits at all in Swedenborg theology, but "spirits similar to the person" fits also a theory I've heard often sort of assumed and warned about but not deeply theologized about - the idea that focusing on evil thoughts attracts evil spirits who enjoy that kind of thinking, focusing on good & holy, things attracts good spirits who like hanging around that environment and repels evil spirits.
Posts: 5830 | From: Texas | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
different thought and not sure if it fits at all in Swedenborg theology, but "spirits similar to the person" fits also a theory I've heard often sort of assumed and warned about but not deeply theologized about - the idea that focusing on evil thoughts attracts evil spirits who enjoy that kind of thinking, focusing on good & holy, things attracts good spirits who like hanging around that environment and repels evil spirits.
That fits exactly with Swedenborgian theology - and I think it is a standard Christian understanding.
In spiritual terms, like attracts like. This is one of the basic characteristics of the spiritual world, and is what creates the difference between heaven and hell. In the spiritual world people automatically congregate with like-minded individuals, and are actually unable to be with those whose basic interests are discordant with their own. The result is that the good are protected from the evil.
But I would emphasize that in this system spirits are as unaware of their connection with people in this world as we are of them. Various things, however, can break down this normal barrier, such as drugs, occult practices, and mental illness. This can be hugely problematic.
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Horseman Bree
Shipmate
# 5290
|
Posted
This just in: "Hallucinatory voices shaped by local Culture" according to a Stanford researcher.
The key finding seems to be that Americans who hear voices feel that those voices are harsh and threatening, while the Africans and Indians who were questioned found that the voices could be benign or playful.
This may be something to do with one's attitudes to the people around one, in that more Westerners find themselves to be isolated and anxious about "them", IMO. Our culture has demanded that we be more independent of each other, while Africans are still accustomed to being part of their group or tribe
--------------------
It's Not That Simple
Posts: 5372 | From: more herring choker than bluenose | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ikkyu
Shipmate
# 15207
|
Posted
No disrespect meant. But this last exchange made me think about the scientific approach to such things.
(I'm teaching the scientific method in school, we are starting the school year)
Since learning anything new about the world is very hard, if you investigate something and believe you found a great result. The person most skeptical about it should be you. Especially if you like your result.
So if you like the idea that we are surrounded by spirits that interact with us, and you want to confirm it. You should look for alternate explanations first and if you fully account for those your explanation has a better chance of corresponding to reality.
People here have mentioned that auditory Hallucinations are commonly observed in non Psychotic patients. That not everybody has experienced them but many sane people have.
And it was mentioned that "spirits" tend to communicate in ways consistent with the local culture.
This makes it very likely that a materialist explanation of events that are claimed as the voices of spirits is the most likely since only supposes the existence of known things, cultures and brains.
A supernatural explanation in this case seems to be superfluous and in need of lots of further evidence. Information that would imply "spirits have our same culture" is better explained by we have our same culture.
If sane people can have auditory hallucinations
could fervent prayer lead to those? What about trance states? Could self induced trance states explain this?
Only if you can fully discount explanations like this is there room for the supernatural in this case.
Of course this is not a proof that we are not surrounded by highly interactive spirits.
But I cannot prove there is not a teapot in orbit between the Earth and Mars either.
Posts: 434 | From: Arizona | Registered: Oct 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
ChastMastr
Shipmate
# 716
|
Posted
But if your metaphysics already accepts that we are indeed surrounded by spirits and related beings, then that really changes the issue. This involves things that the sciences can't do anything with at all.
--------------------
My essays on comics continuity: http://chastmastr.tumblr.com/tagged/continuity
Posts: 14068 | From: Clearwater, Florida | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ikkyu:
This makes it very likely that a materialist explanation of events that are claimed as the voices of spirits is the most likely since only supposes the existence of known things, cultures and brains.
As ChastMastr noted, however, if your metaphysics already accepts the reality of spirits and a spiritual world then this changes things considerably. And since these are biblical phenomena as well, the existence of spirits has long been accepted in Christianity.
The real issue just comes when we try to explain any particular individual's symptoms or experiences as definitely spiritual, when it may just as well be purely imaginary.
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ChastMastr
Shipmate
# 716
|
Posted
To put some of it another way--I was rushing in my last post...
quote:
Originally posted by Ikkyu:
Of course this is not a proof that we are not surrounded by highly interactive spirits.
But I cannot prove there is not a teapot in orbit between the Earth and Mars either.
I think a key difference here is that the vast majority of the human race going back through all of known history, including belief systems like the Judeo-Christian ones that people now, in theory, accept with good reason, has believed in spirits of various kinds, with nary an orbiting teapot in sight. That's evidence I would not discount, especially perhaps in an era which is very willing to discount such things and throw the metaphysical baby out with the bathwater of actual superstition.
--------------------
My essays on comics continuity: http://chastmastr.tumblr.com/tagged/continuity
Posts: 14068 | From: Clearwater, Florida | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ikkyu
Shipmate
# 15207
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
quote:
Originally posted by Ikkyu:
This makes it very likely that a materialist explanation of events that are claimed as the voices of spirits is the most likely since only supposes the existence of known things, cultures and brains.
As ChastMastr noted, however, if your metaphysics already accepts the reality of spirits and a spiritual world then this changes things considerably. And since these are biblical phenomena as well, the existence of spirits has long been accepted in Christianity.
The real issue just comes when we try to explain any particular individual's symptoms or experiences as definitely spiritual, when it may just as well be purely imaginary.
Well if you already had a conclusion before you start to investigate you are not really investigating are you? Putting it another way, if you were trying to convince someone who does not start with your assumptions how would you go about it?
Posts: 434 | From: Arizona | Registered: Oct 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ikkyu:
Well if you already had a conclusion before you start to investigate you are not really investigating are you? Putting it another way, if you were trying to convince someone who does not start with your assumptions how would you go about it?
These are the kinds of things that people either believe or not. I don't think that a person can be convinced if their beginning assumptions do not include the reality of what is spiritual.
On the other hand if someone believes in God then they necessarily believe in a spiritual reality that is not visible or tangible in a material sense.
I imagine that the best argument really has to do with the adequacy of the explanation. Materialistic explanations are based on things that no one can deny is true, because they can be demonstrated to the senses. The question is whether that is adequate or satisfactory, or whether there is more that might be known if there was a way of knowing it.
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ikkyu
Shipmate
# 15207
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ChastMastr:
To put some of it another way--I was rushing in my last post...
quote:
Originally posted by Ikkyu:
Of course this is not a proof that we are not surrounded by highly interactive spirits.
But I cannot prove there is not a teapot in orbit between the Earth and Mars either.
I think a key difference here is that the vast majority of the human race going back through all of known history, including belief systems like the Judeo-Christian ones that people now, in theory, accept with good reason, has believed in spirits of various kinds, with nary an orbiting teapot in sight. That's evidence I would not discount, especially perhaps in an era which is very willing to discount such things and throw the metaphysical baby out with the bathwater of actual superstition.
My problem with this argument is that it lumps many completely different belief systems into one big lump. Are the Arab Jinn the same as the European fairies or the Japanese Yokai? What about the Orishas? Do all of these agree with the Bible? What about Vampires or Werewolves are they additional evidence for the same thing?
A lot of spirits in many world cultures are ancestral spirits. The spirits of recently deceased. Since when is Christian belief compatible with having the spirits of the dead wondering around? Aren't they supposed to be waiting for Judgment day or already in Heaven or Hell? Chinese ancestor worship is supposed to be
evidence for a Christian world-view?
The great variety of "spirit beings" seems to me to fit very well with the great variety of world cultures. We humans are very good at creating culture.
Posts: 434 | From: Arizona | Registered: Oct 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Belle Ringer
Shipmate
# 13379
|
Posted
Classical science deals with the physical measurable repeatable parts of reality. If you believe in any god, or spirits, or even in ESP, there is more to reality than classical science admits. Why not investigate it?
I've had experiences for which the best explanation I can come up with is there exist non-physical (in any classical science sense) intelligent beings who occasionally interact with (or act on) us. Many people have at least once in their life a similar event, the most common being a "visit" from a recently deceased loved person. One can argue it's all mental insanity or hallucination or teenager pranks but that sounds more like a pre-judged "my world-view is right so your facts have to be fake" than science based conclusion.
Some otherwise respected people in many cultures claim occasional encounters with non-physical beings; I haven't yet heard of anyone in any culture having an experience that lead them to believe a teapot is orbiting the earth, so there's far less evidence for that than for non-physical beings, unexpectedly surprised humans being a kind of evidence even if not conclusive evidence.
Posts: 5830 | From: Texas | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ikkyu
Shipmate
# 15207
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
quote:
Originally posted by Ikkyu:
Well if you already had a conclusion before you start to investigate you are not really investigating are you? Putting it another way, if you were trying to convince someone who does not start with your assumptions how would you go about it?
These are the kinds of things that people either believe or not. I don't think that a person can be convinced if their beginning assumptions do not include the reality of what is spiritual.
I think this is the center of our disagreement I like to start with as few assumptions as possible
when trying to decide if something is "real". Of course everyone has assumptions and biases they are often unaware of and I am not claiming any special abilities in avoiding those. This is why I tend to like the scientific method, because it tries as hard as possible to eliminate such bias.
And it has a long history of success behind it.
Posts: 434 | From: Arizona | Registered: Oct 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ikkyu
Shipmate
# 15207
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
Classical science deals with the physical measurable repeatable parts of reality. If you believe in any god, or spirits, or even in ESP, there is more to reality than classical science admits. Why not investigate it?
There have been many studies of ESP none of which have resulted in any real evidence in favor of it.
quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
I've had experiences for which the best explanation I can come up with is there exist non-physical (in any classical science sense) intelligent beings who occasionally interact with (or act on) us. Many people have at least once in their life a similar event, the most common being a "visit" from a recently deceased loved person. One can argue it's all mental insanity or hallucination or teenager pranks but that sounds more like a pre-judged "my world-view is right so your facts have to be fake" than science based conclusion.
I don't start with the assumption that any
talk of spirits interacting with humans "has" to be fake. I just don't see any evidence for it, there is a difference.
In what I posted before I quoted what had been mentioned before that you can have auditory hallucinations and NOT be insane. Our perceptions are notoriously unreliable. Ask any trial lawyer about how reliable eyewitness testimony really is. So personal testimonies are just not good enough. You need more that that. For every person you mention that has had these kinds of experiences I can find people who have never had any such experiences.
quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
Some otherwise respected people in many cultures claim occasional encounters with non-physical beings; I haven't yet heard of anyone in any culture having an experience that lead them to believe a teapot is orbiting the earth, so there's far less evidence for that than for non-physical beings, unexpectedly surprised humans being a kind of evidence even if not conclusive evidence.
That is also the same kind of evidence presented in favor of UFO's. And you yourself say its not conclusive. Extraordinary results need extraordinary evidence the burden of proof lies on those who make extraordinary claims.
Posts: 434 | From: Arizona | Registered: Oct 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ikkyu:
I like to start with as few assumptions as possible when trying to decide if something is "real". Of course everyone has assumptions and biases they are often unaware of and I am not claiming any special abilities in avoiding those. This is why I tend to like the scientific method, because it tries as hard as possible to eliminate such bias.
You're just trading one bias for another.
Science does not assume that physical reality is the only reality. Science only deals with what can be demonstrated, and has nothing to say about spiritual things.
So a scientific approach to spirits and their voices is not to deny their existence but to place them outside of the scope of scientific inquiry.
The real questions, then, are both metaphysical and epistemological. If a spiritual world full of spirits and angels exists, then how would we know about it?
Science is agnostic on these questions. Religion claims to know these things through Divine Revelation.
It is fine to deny that there is such a thing as a Divine and Divine revelation. But it isn't the scientific method that does the denying. Rather, the denial stems from our non-provable assumptions about what is real.
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Nice post, Freddy. I would say that science does not set out to describe reality at all. Of course, you can argue that science does describe it, but that is not a scientific claim, but a philosophical one.
Also, the words 'real' and 'reality' are very fuzzy; I mean they are used to describe different things, for example, an overall sense of what is real (e.g. the physical universe), and also my own breathing now seems real enough.
So there is micro and macro versions of this. Some of the interesting stuff in Eastern religions consists of demolishing some of the macro stuff - thus, for example, 'there is neither world nor self', since 'world' is a conceptual construct.
Well, it is still real, but as a concept, which is, of course, very useful, instrumentally.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
Science does not assume that physical reality is the only reality. Science only deals with what can be demonstrated, and has nothing to say about spiritual things.
So a scientific approach to spirits and their voices is not to deny their existence but to place them outside of the scope of scientific inquiry.
Isn't this just assuming your conclusions? If you start with the assumption that disembodied voices (or diseases, or eclipses, or whatever) are the product of spiritual entities beyond the power of human investigation that seems like advocating deliberate incuriosity and ignorance.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bax
Shipmate
# 16572
|
Posted
The theology of Rene Girard gives a startling clarity to the account of Abraham and Issac.
A link to "girardian reflections" on this passage are at
http://girardianlectionary.net/year_a/proper_8a.htm
(Need to look under the Genesis passage as the site is lectionary based).
For me, this theology give a startling understanding of what Gods is like and how this Old Testament Account, which to first glance by "modern" eyes may seem hard to understand, is in fact one of several pivot points in the history of man's understanding of the One True God. How utterly different this God is form any other "god", A God who in the end become our human sacrifice, so that we become the "angry deity" demanding blood and God the innocent victim.
An extract from the above link:
"It was commonplace in the ancient world for a man to lead his son up a mountain to be sacrificed to his deity. It was extraordinary for a man to come down the mountain with his son still alive. Through that ancient story, Abraham’s descendants explained why they had changed their theory or model of God, and why they dared to be different from their neighbors who still practiced human sacrifice. It wasn’t too late to challenge widely held assumptions and change their theory of God!
But they still weren’t finished. Many generations after human sacrifice was left behind forever, prophets and poets arose among Abraham’s descendants who made the shocking claim that God doesn’t need animal sacrifices, either. They realized that God could never need anything from us, since God provides everything for us. Not only that, but they realized God isn’t the one who is angry and hostile and needs appeasement. We humans are the angry ones. Our hostile, bloodthirsty hearts are the ones that need to be changed"
Posts: 108 | Registered: Aug 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mere Nick
Shipmate
# 11827
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
God: Take your son, your only son, whom you love, and sacrifice him on the mountain which I will show to you.
Abraham: I'm all over it.
____________________________________
If you hear a voice claiming to be God telling you to do something that seems wrong, or contradicts what you have been taught to be right, do you obey it? Why or why not?
I would probably defer the decision until I have examined the matter. What does God's voice sound like, anyway?
--------------------
"Well that's it, boys. I've been redeemed. The preacher's done warshed away all my sins and transgressions. It's the straight and narrow from here on out, and heaven everlasting's my reward."
Delmar O'Donnell
Posts: 2797 | From: West Carolina | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ikkyu
Shipmate
# 15207
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
So a scientific approach to spirits and their voices is not to deny their existence but to place them outside of the scope of scientific inquiry.
But if someone is hearing voices in the real day to day world is that outside the scope of Science?
Neurologists and Psychiatrists should refrain from looking at this if the person claims it is from a god or spirits?
I believe the answer to that one is no, they should not refrain from studying this because it may upset someone's preconceptions.
Should we go back in time an call all mental illness demonic possession?
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
The real questions, then, are both metaphysical and epistemological. If a spiritual world full of spirits and angels exists, then how would we know about it?
If from the outset you eliminate science from your tool set that is a very hard question to answer.
And don't get me wrong I'm not claiming that science has all the answers and that it is 100% certain that there is nothing "Supernatural".
My claim is just this: If you claim that a given
example is evidence for the supernatural, carefully ruling out all other materialistic explanations first would be good methodology if you are trying to convince anyone else.
Most skeptics about this sort of thing would actually be interested if presented with a study in which it was very clear that materialist explanations were aggressively pursued and found wanting. And a lot less interested if the authors rule them out a priori.
Posts: 434 | From: Arizona | Registered: Oct 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
ChastMastr
Shipmate
# 716
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ikkyu:
My problem with this argument is that it lumps many completely different belief systems into one big lump. Are the Arab Jinn the same as the European fairies or the Japanese Yokai?
I suspect that the European fairies and the Japanese yokai are the same "sort of thing"; I am not sure about the jinn, though possibly.
quote:
What about the Orishas? Do all of these agree with the Bible?
I've never studied Orishas. And what does it have to do with agreeing with the Bible? We're told our own story there as humans, with glimpses of angels and demons, but not a systematic catalogue of everything else in Creation.
quote:
What about Vampires or Werewolves are they additional evidence for the same thing?
Possibly in some cases, possibly not. I should mention that there is a difference between thinking that there is evidence for "weird things" in legends and claimed experiences throughout history, and anything from Hollywood or novels. As Lewis points out, the usual notion of tiny fairies is more of a literary invention, and often they were considered terrifying and dangerous.
quote:
A lot of spirits in many world cultures are ancestral spirits. The spirits of recently deceased. Since when is Christian belief compatible with having the spirits of the dead wondering around?
Since... the beginning of the faith? You know, when Jesus is walking on the water and the disciples think it's a ghost? When Jesus is resurrected and He has to show them He's not a ghost and eats fish? The existence of ghosts seems to be assumed.
quote:
Aren't they supposed to be waiting for Judgment day or already in Heaven or Hell?
Since when? You're leaving out Purgatory as well.
quote:
Chinese ancestor worship is supposed to be
evidence for a Christian world-view?
We're not allowed to worship them; that doesn't mean they don't exist. And, as with the saints, we can even revere them in appropriate ways.
--------------------
My essays on comics continuity: http://chastmastr.tumblr.com/tagged/continuity
Posts: 14068 | From: Clearwater, Florida | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ChastMastr
Shipmate
# 716
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ikkyu:
Should we go back in time an call all mental illness demonic possession?
No, only some of them. I find the approach where we go back and do the reverse, in which Jesus therefore apparently cast a case of schizophrenia into a herd of pigs, much harder to believe.
quote:
If from the outset you eliminate science from your tool set that is a very hard question to answer.
I'm the same way but with theology and tradition, including (apart from where Christianity specifically claims the opposite--for example, I don't believe in human reincarnation, as we are told that it is appointed unto man once to die; otherwise I might be open to it) the wider human traditions down through history.
quote:
...if you are trying to convince anyone else.
That might be the key. If people are already not open to such things, they may need their own experiences (and many have had them) before they become open to it.
We do, after all, in terms of spiritual things (not necessarily paranormal ones), have claims that some cannot perceive or understand things unless they are open to them--let he who has ears, let him hear; if they do not accept Moses and the prophets then they will not believe even if someone rises from the dead; and so on.
And of course perhaps for some, it might be just as well not to encounter ghosts and weird things. It might wind up a temptation to obsession, or to idolatry, or to certain forbidden occult things. Certainly in my own case I have to be careful how I deal with such matters.
--------------------
My essays on comics continuity: http://chastmastr.tumblr.com/tagged/continuity
Posts: 14068 | From: Clearwater, Florida | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ChastMastr
Shipmate
# 716
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
I would probably defer the decision until I have examined the matter. What does God's voice sound like, anyway?
My own perceived paranormal experiences (not the same thing as spiritual, in my view, by the way) have generally not been audial or visual at all. Maybe the occasional dream. I've envied people who get to actually see auras and the like. If I try to translate/describe the... perceptions I've had involving some things, it's not easy to put them into words any more than it is to explain sounds in terms of pictures.
--------------------
My essays on comics continuity: http://chastmastr.tumblr.com/tagged/continuity
Posts: 14068 | From: Clearwater, Florida | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ChastMastr
Shipmate
# 716
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ikkyu:
I like to start with as few assumptions as possible
when trying to decide if something is "real". Of course everyone has assumptions and biases they are often unaware of and I am not claiming any special abilities in avoiding those. This is why I tend to like the scientific method, because it tries as hard as possible to eliminate such bias.
And it has a long history of success behind it.
To me, actually, throwing out basically all of human tradition is a much more massive assumption.
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
Science does not assume that physical reality is the only reality. Science only deals with what can be demonstrated, and has nothing to say about spiritual things.
So a scientific approach to spirits and their voices is not to deny their existence but to place them outside of the scope of scientific inquiry.
The real questions, then, are both metaphysical and epistemological. If a spiritual world full of spirits and angels exists, then how would we know about it?
Science is agnostic on these questions. Religion claims to know these things through Divine Revelation.
It is fine to deny that there is such a thing as a Divine and Divine revelation. But it isn't the scientific method that does the denying. Rather, the denial stems from our non-provable assumptions about what is real.
Agreed.
Bax: I've never read Girard but that sounds awesome and seems to make sense to me.
--------------------
My essays on comics continuity: http://chastmastr.tumblr.com/tagged/continuity
Posts: 14068 | From: Clearwater, Florida | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
itsarumdo
Shipmate
# 18174
|
Posted
My understanding is that if the instruction feels peaceful or opens the heart and leads to more peace and more heartfulness then that's a good indication that it can be trusted. If we don't know what Abraham felt in response to the question, the source of the words are indeterminate. If he was disturbed, then maybe the first voiuce (issuing the instructions) was different from the second (countermanding them)?
--------------------
"Iti sapis potanda tinone" Lycophron
Posts: 994 | From: Planet Zog | Registered: Jul 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ikkyu:
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
So a scientific approach to spirits and their voices is not to deny their existence but to place them outside of the scope of scientific inquiry.
But if someone is hearing voices in the real day to day world is that outside the scope of Science?
Neurologists and Psychiatrists should refrain from looking at this if the person claims it is from a god or spirits?
I believe the answer to that one is no, they should not refrain from studying this because it may upset someone's preconceptions.
Should we go back in time an call all mental illness demonic possession?
My thought would be that medical doctors would look at the issue according to medical science. The symptoms of a person who is hearing voices is not automatically outside of their field of knowledge. We know from research and experience that these things can be treated medically. That is what ought to happen.
What I'm saying is that the doctors don't need to have any opinion about whether the patient is really hearing the voices of spirits, whether they are purely imaginary, or whether voices are just a feature of hallucinations. These questions are beyond the reach of science, which deals with what can be observed.
All they need to do is treat the issue according to methods that lie within their field of knowledge.
quote:
Originally posted by Ikkyu:
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
The real questions, then, are both metaphysical and epistemological. If a spiritual world full of spirits and angels exists, then how would we know about it?
If from the outset you eliminate science from your tool set that is a very hard question to answer.
This is not eliminating science from the toolkit. Science does not deal with metaphysical and epistemological issues. They are two different things.
quote:
Originally posted by Ikkyu:
And don't get me wrong I'm not claiming that science has all the answers and that it is 100% certain that there is nothing "Supernatural".
My claim is just this: If you claim that a given
example is evidence for the supernatural, carefully ruling out all other materialistic explanations first would be good methodology if you are trying to convince anyone else.
Most skeptics about this sort of thing would actually be interested if presented with a study in which it was very clear that materialist explanations were aggressively pursued and found wanting. And a lot less interested if the authors rule them out a priori.
I agree completely. Aside from which, I don't believe in faith healing, or exorcism, anyway. When the symptoms appear on the physical level that is really where they need to be treated.
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ikkyu
Shipmate
# 15207
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ChastMastr:
quote:
What about the Orishas? Do all of these agree with the Bible?
I've never studied Orishas. And what does it have to do with agreeing with the Bible? We're told our own story there as humans, with glimpses of angels and demons, but not a systematic catalogue of everything else in Creation.
About the Orishas you are missing a lot if you don't know them.
Celia Cruz Singing to an Orisha. Chango.
quote:
Originally posted by ChastMastr:
quote:
What about Vampires or Werewolves are they additional evidence for the same thing?
Possibly in some cases, possibly not. I should mention that there is a difference between thinking that there is evidence for "weird things" in legends and claimed experiences throughout history, and anything from Hollywood or novels. As Lewis points out, the usual notion of tiny fairies is more of a literary invention, and often they were considered terrifying and dangerous.
But has anybody seen a fairy recently in a western country? Are people in England afraid of fairies? I believe there have been more UFO sightings reported. Did the fairies just go away? Or was it a cultural phenomenon?
My main point is that people in Japan don't convert to Christianity if they think Yokai are real. An I'm pretty sure Christians in Japan discourage that sort of belief. You bringing up their belief as evidence of yours sounds strange to me.
Posts: 434 | From: Arizona | Registered: Oct 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ikkyu
Shipmate
# 15207
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ChastMastr:
quote:
Originally posted by Ikkyu:
I like to start with as few assumptions as possible
when trying to decide if something is "real". Of course everyone has assumptions and biases they are often unaware of and I am not claiming any special abilities in avoiding those. This is why I tend to like the scientific method, because it tries as hard as possible to eliminate such bias.
And it has a long history of success behind it.
To me, actually, throwing out basically all of human tradition is a much more massive assumption.
Who wants to throw out all of human tradition?
Isn't science a human tradition? I have spent 11 years practicing Zen Buddhism. I was just pointing out that science has useful things to say about hearing voices in your head. And ignoring those in favor of demons or spirits might not be advisable.
And claiming that all of human tradition leads to the same beliefs is strange to me. In my opinion a lot of human tradition leads to Science. And all spiritual traditions do not point to the same thing.
Posts: 434 | From: Arizona | Registered: Oct 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ikkyu:
My main point is that people in Japan don't convert to Christianity if they think Yokai are real. An I'm pretty sure Christians in Japan discourage that sort of belief.
I'm sure that's right. I had never heard of Yokai, but I was fascinated to read about them in Wikipedia:
quote:
The classical yokai represented by tsukumogami can only be felt as something realistic by living close to nature, such as with tanuki (Japanese racoon dogs), foxes and weasels. Furthermore, in the suburbs, and other regions, even when living in a primary-sector environment, there are tools that are no longer seen, such as the inkstone, the kama (a large cooking pot), or the tsurube (a bucket used for getting water from a well), and there exist yokai that are reminiscent of old lifestyles such as the azukiarai and the dorotabo. As a result, even for those born in the first decade of the Showa period (1925-1935), except for some who were evacuated to the countryside, they would feel that those things that become yokai are "not familiar" are "not very undersandable." For example, in classical rakugo, even though people understand the words and what they refer to, they are not able to imagine it as something that could be realistic. Thus, the modernization of society has had a negative effect on the place of yokai in classical Japanese culture.
That is such a unique perspective, and it is very hard for me to understand from my American middle-class perspective.
I think, though, that we are leaving out an essential element of the whole question of spirits, fairies, yokai, or whatever. This is the epistemological question. How do we know about these things?
For me it is absolutely paramount that we trust a reliable source. For me that source is the Old Testament, the New Testament, and the theological works of Emanuel Swedenborg. Trusting those sources, I can say with confidence that spirits exist but that werewolves, fairies and ghosts do not. I also think that I "know" from these sources how spirits and angels work, how the system operates, and why it is the way that it is.
I wouldn't expect other people to accept my sources, but I would expect that they would have sources of their own that they trusted. Failing that, it is all speculation. And to the extent that it is understood to be speculation I would expect there to be little certainty about any of this. ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ikkyu
Shipmate
# 15207
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
quote:
Originally posted by Ikkyu:
And don't get me wrong I'm not claiming that science has all the answers and that it is 100% certain that there is nothing "Supernatural".
My claim is just this: If you claim that a given
example is evidence for the supernatural, carefully ruling out all other materialistic explanations first would be good methodology if you are trying to convince anyone else.
Most skeptics about this sort of thing would actually be interested if presented with a study in which it was very clear that materialist explanations were aggressively pursued and found wanting. And a lot less interested if the authors rule them out a priori.
I agree completely. Aside from which, I don't believe in faith healing, or exorcism, anyway. When the symptoms appear on the physical level that is really where they need to be treated.
I'm glad we can agree on this part which is my main point. But I believe also that if you keep examining case by case and you never find any that does not have a materialist explanation,the evidence seems to be pointing in a definite direction does it not?
But if you are saying that we could never find
any cases that will give positive evidence of the supernatural, then how could we ever learn anything about it? In which way is it useful if it does not explain anything that cannot be explained by brains and culture?
Posts: 434 | From: Arizona | Registered: Oct 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
