I will admit that the article containing the phrase in the title above isn't quite as stupid as it first seems. "Finding a home for the religiously stranded: Marmur" does contain a few decent points. None are new or particularly insightful but worth reviewing on occasion. However, they do not come any where near compensating for the boat load of stupid that is in the piece. There are far too many logical falicies and general lapses in reason to cover. I will, instead, point out some of the foolish implications of the title that are carried through the body of the article.
As I have pointed out in previous posts over the years I have come to believe two things about most theists. 1. Most theists do not ever bother to think through wher their professed beliefs lead logically; and/or 2. Most theists don't truly believe most of what they claime to (other behaviors and beliefs are too contradictory). The phrase "religiously stranded" seems to be just another example of this. How can you possibly be "stranded" from a belief or set of beliefs? It makes no sense on the surface of it. After think more about the type of beliefs being talked about it becomes even more absurd. Most of the individuals alluded to not only believe in God they seem to believe in the more abstract version of the God concept. If God truly is the perfect and all powerful divine entity they claim how is it even remotely possible to be separated. God would literally be the source of everything and simultaneously present in all things. Even considering being "stranded" would be a contradictions of terms.
Silly nonsensical crap is laced throughout the implications and applications of this phrasing. There is no logical or reasonable way to use "religiously stranded" without revealing numerous philosophical and intellectual shortcomings of any and all religious concepts associated with it.
Showing posts with label Spirituality. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Spirituality. Show all posts
Monday, January 16, 2017
Sunday, November 30, 2014
Bad dichotomy.... No reason for you
The false dichotomy of Spiritual vs. Material has always seemed to be one of the most ridiculous and easiest to refute. Unfortunately, it is an incredibly pervasive one. A recent piece on the Elephant website, "The Truth About Spirituality & Materialism", once again reminded me of why I have such a low opinion of this type of tripe.
Really, what exactly do people think they are being "spiritual" about and how do they think they are even capable of contemplating such nonsense? Don't people realize that all thinking and feeling are dependent on the mind? It has been pretty well established at this point that the mind is a direct product of the brain. The brain, put simply, is a physical organ. Despite claims to the contrary, the mind is material. The mind cannot exist without the brain. The mind cannot function without any number of physical, hence material, processes carried out by the brain. The conclusion seems so blatantly obvious that I have a hard time understanding why so few can figure it out. What people talk about when they refer to the spiritual cannot be separated from the mind. It is a product of the brain just as much as the mind itself is. Quite literally, everything is material. Spirituality is not a separate thing. That's the truth.
Really, what exactly do people think they are being "spiritual" about and how do they think they are even capable of contemplating such nonsense? Don't people realize that all thinking and feeling are dependent on the mind? It has been pretty well established at this point that the mind is a direct product of the brain. The brain, put simply, is a physical organ. Despite claims to the contrary, the mind is material. The mind cannot exist without the brain. The mind cannot function without any number of physical, hence material, processes carried out by the brain. The conclusion seems so blatantly obvious that I have a hard time understanding why so few can figure it out. What people talk about when they refer to the spiritual cannot be separated from the mind. It is a product of the brain just as much as the mind itself is. Quite literally, everything is material. Spirituality is not a separate thing. That's the truth.
"Spiritually conscious" = reality impaired
Apparently, Neale Walsh of Conversations with God (Patheos) is planning to write a five part series. On what this series is supposed to cover I'm not quite sure. The first part, "How can spiritually conscious people respond to our world?", seems to be an exercise in spewing as many vague and incoherent phrases as possible while simultaneously being as contradictory as possible. It makes no sense, so, I really don't have any idea what it is supposed to be an introductory piece to.
Even after you set aside the first obvious question posed by the title itself; what the fuck does he mean by "spiritually conscious", the initial paragraph just demonstrate how clueless Walsh is.
"I cannot remember a time during my half century of adulthood when the average human being on this planet found herself or himself looking directly into the face of more stressful events, circumstances, and situations than those now presenting themselves daily around the world."
Umm, does he have some issues with memory/retention or is he being incredibly disingenuous? Walsh is only a little older than I am but does not seem to remember that period of US history we labeled The Cold War. I guess the constant threat of nuclear annihilation just slipped his mind.
Ignoring the tail end of the Cold War is ridiculous enough without him spending a few paragraphs talking about how uniquely disturbing the current era is. He crosses the line from being willfully ignorant to the point of stupidity into being out right contradictory when he immediately follows this claim with "This, of course, is not a new inquiry. Shakespeare put it this way, asking in the famous words of Hamlet 'whether ‘tis nobler in the mind to suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune, or to take arms against a sea of troubles, and by opposing, end them'…?"
Huh? So, we are living in a unique era despite a late sixteenth century playright commenting on many of the same issues and themes.
About the only consistencies I noticed in the whole piece were Walsh's ability to carry-on in random and meandering directions as well as a penchant for empty phrases incorporating the word "spiritual."
Even after you set aside the first obvious question posed by the title itself; what the fuck does he mean by "spiritually conscious", the initial paragraph just demonstrate how clueless Walsh is.
"I cannot remember a time during my half century of adulthood when the average human being on this planet found herself or himself looking directly into the face of more stressful events, circumstances, and situations than those now presenting themselves daily around the world."
Umm, does he have some issues with memory/retention or is he being incredibly disingenuous? Walsh is only a little older than I am but does not seem to remember that period of US history we labeled The Cold War. I guess the constant threat of nuclear annihilation just slipped his mind.
Ignoring the tail end of the Cold War is ridiculous enough without him spending a few paragraphs talking about how uniquely disturbing the current era is. He crosses the line from being willfully ignorant to the point of stupidity into being out right contradictory when he immediately follows this claim with "This, of course, is not a new inquiry. Shakespeare put it this way, asking in the famous words of Hamlet 'whether ‘tis nobler in the mind to suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune, or to take arms against a sea of troubles, and by opposing, end them'…?"
Huh? So, we are living in a unique era despite a late sixteenth century playright commenting on many of the same issues and themes.
About the only consistencies I noticed in the whole piece were Walsh's ability to carry-on in random and meandering directions as well as a penchant for empty phrases incorporating the word "spiritual."
Sunday, May 25, 2014
What SBNR ought to stand for
Spiritual But Not Religious (SBNR) has become a rather common refrain and theme over the past few decades. It is as misleading as it is nonsensical.
A recent BBC post, "A Point of View: Is it better to be religious than spiritual?", did a decent job pointing out the slight difference between "religion" and "spirituality" but still waffled a little on the distinction. People are not actually rejecting religion. They seem to be rejecting rigid adherence to specific sets of rites and rituals, doctrines, and religious leaders. They are moving away from organized religion not religion as a generic social construct.
Personally, I think "Silly Bullshit Nicely Restated" is more accurate to what is taking place.
A recent BBC post, "A Point of View: Is it better to be religious than spiritual?", did a decent job pointing out the slight difference between "religion" and "spirituality" but still waffled a little on the distinction. People are not actually rejecting religion. They seem to be rejecting rigid adherence to specific sets of rites and rituals, doctrines, and religious leaders. They are moving away from organized religion not religion as a generic social construct.
Personally, I think "Silly Bullshit Nicely Restated" is more accurate to what is taking place.
Sunday, March 2, 2014
More "Spiritual" not "Religious" BS
I have pointed out previously that "spiritual" and "religious" are not necessarily synonyms but that they are inter-related to the point that they can be used in very similar ways. In effect if you are one then you are the other as well. Usually what is actually meant by those who say they are "spiritual but not religious" is that they do not belong to and/or identify with a specific organized religion. Generally, I am in favor of theists going the "spiritual" route if they find religion necessary. I do not, however, accept it as an excuse to further promote myths and stereotypes.
A recent post by Linda Mercadante on CNN's Belief Blog repeats a number willfully ignorant views. Unfortunately, her ignorance around two terms in particular are rather common. She has no clue what she is talking about when she refers to "scientism" or "secularism." Scientism is a rather bogus term that is analogous to "social Darwinism." Like social social Darwinism, scientism has no real connection to the term it is supposedly predicated on. Scientism is a refutation of science not an off-shoot of it. Science is in essence a tool and a self-correcting process. Scientism is a rigid ideology held by those who lack even a basic understanding of science. Mercadante may be right in insisting that the "SBNRs" oppose "scientism." but that doesn't necessarily mean much since they have no clue what they are talking about. In many instances, scientism has been used by a sub-set of theists to attack science. It is the straw man fallacy writ large; convenient bullshit.
The author also seem to misunderstand/misrepresent secularism. For instance she states:
"They are tired of being confined by systems and structures. They are tired of having their unique identities reduced to bureaucratic codes. They are tired of having their spiritual natures squelched or denied."
What?! That's what secularism is designed to prevent. Secularism allows individuals and groups to freely believe whatever they want without others interfering with those beliefs. Secularism seeks to keep government and religion apart so that there is no coercion or infringement on people's beliefs. If the "SBNRs" are opposing secularism then they are defeating themselves. It is the absence of secularism that allows larger and/or more powerful religious groups to harass and coerce others. It is also the lack of secularism that allows government or other non-religious affiliated groups to dictate to theists what they can or cannot believe.
From start to finish "Good news about the ‘spiritual but not religious’" is laced with all sorts of ridiculous nonsense. Most of Mercadante's bullshit seem to stem from her complete lack of understanding. It is almost as if she took a slew of terms and their defintion along with various myths and stereotypes and threw them into a spin-art. Reading it was both amusing and painful.
A recent post by Linda Mercadante on CNN's Belief Blog repeats a number willfully ignorant views. Unfortunately, her ignorance around two terms in particular are rather common. She has no clue what she is talking about when she refers to "scientism" or "secularism." Scientism is a rather bogus term that is analogous to "social Darwinism." Like social social Darwinism, scientism has no real connection to the term it is supposedly predicated on. Scientism is a refutation of science not an off-shoot of it. Science is in essence a tool and a self-correcting process. Scientism is a rigid ideology held by those who lack even a basic understanding of science. Mercadante may be right in insisting that the "SBNRs" oppose "scientism." but that doesn't necessarily mean much since they have no clue what they are talking about. In many instances, scientism has been used by a sub-set of theists to attack science. It is the straw man fallacy writ large; convenient bullshit.
The author also seem to misunderstand/misrepresent secularism. For instance she states:
"They are tired of being confined by systems and structures. They are tired of having their unique identities reduced to bureaucratic codes. They are tired of having their spiritual natures squelched or denied."
What?! That's what secularism is designed to prevent. Secularism allows individuals and groups to freely believe whatever they want without others interfering with those beliefs. Secularism seeks to keep government and religion apart so that there is no coercion or infringement on people's beliefs. If the "SBNRs" are opposing secularism then they are defeating themselves. It is the absence of secularism that allows larger and/or more powerful religious groups to harass and coerce others. It is also the lack of secularism that allows government or other non-religious affiliated groups to dictate to theists what they can or cannot believe.
From start to finish "Good news about the ‘spiritual but not religious’" is laced with all sorts of ridiculous nonsense. Most of Mercadante's bullshit seem to stem from her complete lack of understanding. It is almost as if she took a slew of terms and their defintion along with various myths and stereotypes and threw them into a spin-art. Reading it was both amusing and painful.
Sunday, October 27, 2013
Debating from Ignorance
The repercussions from Oprah's recent televised stupidity involving the distance swimmer Nyad may end up leading to some positive discussions but that does not mean that she is herself a legitimate partner in such discussions/debates. She is, in fact, one of the worst possible candidates for such an exchange. I feel it necessary to clarify a little. I am biased when it comes to Oprah. I have for quite some time considered her to be a vile, ignorant, and arrogant media-whore.
My first impression of her from watching her talk show a few times in the 80s has not changed much. My soon to be sister-in-law convinced me to watch a few episodes with her. The first one I saw outright infuriated me. There were a few women she had brought on stage supposedly to speak out about rape. Both were rape victims themselves. When Oprah didn't get the answers she wanted as quickly as she wanted she badgered them until they broke down in hysterical sobs. The second show wasn't much better. A woman who suffered from chronic intense migraines was brought on to talk about the condition. Oprah did the same thing. The woman had just explained she was having trouble focusing on the questions because her meds weren't working very well. Rather than give her a moment to collect herself Oprah chose to viciously verbally attack her. For years after that I refused to pay any attention to her rising career.
After college a friend of mine convinced me that she had changed and was doing a lot of great things in regard to promoting history and literature I gave her a another shot. As it turns out nothing had really changed. Most of what she was peddling was not real history. Her episode on the then recent release of the movie Amistad was an excellent example. She was promoting the idea that all Americans of African ancestry were descendants of slaves. Though I agree that slavery is a shameful aspect of our history that should never be forgotten or excused I DO NOT agree with promoting false history to achieve it. Any one with an interest in history could easily discover that her claim was a blatant lie. For example the first African-Americans to end up in Virginia were indentured servants not slaves. There is nothing in the historical record that indicates they were treated any differently than the "white" indentured servants. Granted, such servants were treated like shit but it doesn't seem to have had anything to do with their ethnicity (authority and economics mattered). What of those individuals who migrated before and after the end of slavery? Were they ot real Americans? She has since established a rather terrible track record for promoting all sorts of faux-history and pseudo-science.
However, she is not the only one guilty of being an ignorant ass in the various comments and arguments that have sprung up around her exchange with Nyad. A recent piece on the International Business Times website, "Can Atheists Still Be Spiritual? Oprah Prompts Debate", is a pretty good example of how much of the "debate" is a bunch of drivel. It all seems to hinge on being completely ignorant of even the most basic terms and concepts involved. The big one, of course, is the idea being associated with "Spirituality." The simple answer is that atheists probably can't be "spiritual." The problem with pointing that out stems from the fact that the term is being misused and pressed into perpetuating a number of myths and biases. Spirituality is a religious term that cannot be separated from its supernatural underpinnings. Nyad screws up by accepting the term. Awe and wonder are not really synonymous. You can find wonder and beauty around the world without accepting any supernatural bullshit. There shouldn't really be a reason to debate the point that atheists are human beings. That is what assholes like Oprah seem to be trying to do. They want to make us seem less than human by insisting we can't have feelings and emotions like theists. So long as "debates" are set up this way there is no real point in engaging such blindly ignorant bigoted morons.
My first impression of her from watching her talk show a few times in the 80s has not changed much. My soon to be sister-in-law convinced me to watch a few episodes with her. The first one I saw outright infuriated me. There were a few women she had brought on stage supposedly to speak out about rape. Both were rape victims themselves. When Oprah didn't get the answers she wanted as quickly as she wanted she badgered them until they broke down in hysterical sobs. The second show wasn't much better. A woman who suffered from chronic intense migraines was brought on to talk about the condition. Oprah did the same thing. The woman had just explained she was having trouble focusing on the questions because her meds weren't working very well. Rather than give her a moment to collect herself Oprah chose to viciously verbally attack her. For years after that I refused to pay any attention to her rising career.
After college a friend of mine convinced me that she had changed and was doing a lot of great things in regard to promoting history and literature I gave her a another shot. As it turns out nothing had really changed. Most of what she was peddling was not real history. Her episode on the then recent release of the movie Amistad was an excellent example. She was promoting the idea that all Americans of African ancestry were descendants of slaves. Though I agree that slavery is a shameful aspect of our history that should never be forgotten or excused I DO NOT agree with promoting false history to achieve it. Any one with an interest in history could easily discover that her claim was a blatant lie. For example the first African-Americans to end up in Virginia were indentured servants not slaves. There is nothing in the historical record that indicates they were treated any differently than the "white" indentured servants. Granted, such servants were treated like shit but it doesn't seem to have had anything to do with their ethnicity (authority and economics mattered). What of those individuals who migrated before and after the end of slavery? Were they ot real Americans? She has since established a rather terrible track record for promoting all sorts of faux-history and pseudo-science.
However, she is not the only one guilty of being an ignorant ass in the various comments and arguments that have sprung up around her exchange with Nyad. A recent piece on the International Business Times website, "Can Atheists Still Be Spiritual? Oprah Prompts Debate", is a pretty good example of how much of the "debate" is a bunch of drivel. It all seems to hinge on being completely ignorant of even the most basic terms and concepts involved. The big one, of course, is the idea being associated with "Spirituality." The simple answer is that atheists probably can't be "spiritual." The problem with pointing that out stems from the fact that the term is being misused and pressed into perpetuating a number of myths and biases. Spirituality is a religious term that cannot be separated from its supernatural underpinnings. Nyad screws up by accepting the term. Awe and wonder are not really synonymous. You can find wonder and beauty around the world without accepting any supernatural bullshit. There shouldn't really be a reason to debate the point that atheists are human beings. That is what assholes like Oprah seem to be trying to do. They want to make us seem less than human by insisting we can't have feelings and emotions like theists. So long as "debates" are set up this way there is no real point in engaging such blindly ignorant bigoted morons.
Wednesday, June 12, 2013
Actually, She is a Believer
"When I say I am not a believer, it doesn't mean I believe nothing. It is that belief is not central to my religious and spiritual life. As a matter of fact, belief holds little importance to me at all. Belief doesn't structure my experience; my experience structures what few beliefs I might have"
This is how T. Thorn Coyle opens her piece "Why I Am Not a Believer." The very first sentence is a synopsis of an all too common misconception/myth. The idea that if you do not have religious based beliefs you automatically believe in nothing is absurd. Everyone has beliefs. The nature of those beliefs vary greatly. This is not quite what Coyle means by not being a believer but her variation of this misunderstanding is not much better.
Most of what follows the opening paragraph not only fails to support the idea that beliefs are secondary for Coyle, a great deal of her own writing seems to be self-contradictory. She goes out of her way to isolate belief from experience. Though it is true the two are not synonyms and should not be treated as if they are they do still have a great deal of interconnected aspects.
In some ways the piece was incredibly painful to read. Despite its brevity it was crammed full of all sorts of new age spirituality and psycho-babble. Ultimately, it seemed like she was trying to convince herself that she is not a "believer" mainly because she cannot strip the term of a variety of traditional connotations that she is uncomfortable with. If this little exercise helped her in some way then I'm happy for her. If she thought she was sharing some type of insight with others I hope she re-reads her own writing and thinks about it a bit more.
This is how T. Thorn Coyle opens her piece "Why I Am Not a Believer." The very first sentence is a synopsis of an all too common misconception/myth. The idea that if you do not have religious based beliefs you automatically believe in nothing is absurd. Everyone has beliefs. The nature of those beliefs vary greatly. This is not quite what Coyle means by not being a believer but her variation of this misunderstanding is not much better.
Most of what follows the opening paragraph not only fails to support the idea that beliefs are secondary for Coyle, a great deal of her own writing seems to be self-contradictory. She goes out of her way to isolate belief from experience. Though it is true the two are not synonyms and should not be treated as if they are they do still have a great deal of interconnected aspects.
In some ways the piece was incredibly painful to read. Despite its brevity it was crammed full of all sorts of new age spirituality and psycho-babble. Ultimately, it seemed like she was trying to convince herself that she is not a "believer" mainly because she cannot strip the term of a variety of traditional connotations that she is uncomfortable with. If this little exercise helped her in some way then I'm happy for her. If she thought she was sharing some type of insight with others I hope she re-reads her own writing and thinks about it a bit more.
Saturday, January 21, 2012
Misused and Abused: Spirituality
Over the previous decade or so the term spirituality has become far more commonplace. If it didn't denote something that is so important to so many I would be tempted to say it has become fashionable to use the term and its variations. Believing in ideals and values that go beyond us as individuals is important and should not be scoffed at. Unfortunately, that is not what Spirituality really means. I don't think most people who use the term understand its origin or its meaning.
I keep hearing things like, "I'm not religious, I'm spiritual" or "I don't believe in religions, I believe in being spiritual."
It seems to me that what most people who use the term in this manner really mean is that they do not follow and/or believe in organized religion. Even though spirituality and religion are not completely synonymous they are interdependent. If you are "spiritual" you are by definition religious and vice versa.
Looking at a few dictionary entries might help demonstrate what I mean a little better.
Penguin English Dictionary defines spirituality:
1.sensitivity or attachment to religious values
2.a practice of personal devotion and prayer
Collins English Dictionary defines it:
1.the state or quality of being dedicated to God, religion, or spiritual things or values, especially as contrasted with material or temporal ones.
2.the condition or quality of being spiritual.
3.a distinctive approach to religion or prayer: the spirituality of the desert Fathers.
4.(often plural) Church property or revenue or a Church benefice.
It seems pretty clear to me that spirituality is definitively linked to religion. So why do people misuse this term? Simply separating from organized forms of religion does not seem to completely explain it. I suspect that those who describe themselves as spiritual but not religious may understand, at least subconsciously, that religions are nonsense. They may also have some sense that beyond being subjective and silly it is also frequently harmful. Who wants to be associated with that? In the end, spirituality is essentially a slightly diluted version.
I keep hearing things like, "I'm not religious, I'm spiritual" or "I don't believe in religions, I believe in being spiritual."
It seems to me that what most people who use the term in this manner really mean is that they do not follow and/or believe in organized religion. Even though spirituality and religion are not completely synonymous they are interdependent. If you are "spiritual" you are by definition religious and vice versa.
Looking at a few dictionary entries might help demonstrate what I mean a little better.
Penguin English Dictionary defines spirituality:
1.sensitivity or attachment to religious values
2.a practice of personal devotion and prayer
Collins English Dictionary defines it:
1.the state or quality of being dedicated to God, religion, or spiritual things or values, especially as contrasted with material or temporal ones.
2.the condition or quality of being spiritual.
3.a distinctive approach to religion or prayer: the spirituality of the desert Fathers.
4.(often plural) Church property or revenue or a Church benefice.
It seems pretty clear to me that spirituality is definitively linked to religion. So why do people misuse this term? Simply separating from organized forms of religion does not seem to completely explain it. I suspect that those who describe themselves as spiritual but not religious may understand, at least subconsciously, that religions are nonsense. They may also have some sense that beyond being subjective and silly it is also frequently harmful. Who wants to be associated with that? In the end, spirituality is essentially a slightly diluted version.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)