About Beliefs
Before I get too far along with this blog, let me just go ahead and jump this hurdle now so we can all be on the same page about where I'm coming from and move on. Whenever I have cause to discuss these issues of mysticism and high strangeness with others, the inevitable question always comes along: "Just what exactly DO you believe?" So, allow me to explain myself as succinctly and clearly as possible:
I do not BELIEVE anything.
Basically, I have two rather broad categories: that of which I know, have direct experiance of and can intelligently discuss; and that which I do not and cannot. Belief, to me, tends to serve as little more than an intellectual crutch. Belief also tends to be the sole source of much of the mayhem, murder and strife that occurs in this old world. If not for mass numbers of people who absolutely insist in a concept of a one, true religion as demonstrated by this God or that dogma, there would be significantly less cause for hatred and dissonance. I cannot help but see this type of mindset as the utmost foolishness and therefore will not allow myself to invest blind faith in anything I cannot otherwise get my head around.
Now, understand that I consider myself to be a fairly deeply spiritual person. I have a pretty neat relationship with my understanding of Deity and I truly do not wish to undermine anyone's faith, but rather I would like for all to consider what you 'faith' truly teaches and whether it really coincides with your understanding of Spirit. I would suggest that religion has very little to do with Spirit and quite a lot to do with control. Control over populations via mind control of rather insidious nature. The main thrust of religion, specifically differences of religion, is to divide humanity thereby making the species as a whole much easier for the various ruling classes to control. Cultural differences, while presenting something of an obstacle to common understanding, can certainly be gotten around whereas blind, zealous belief in any "one, true way" presents an obviously much more difficult hurdle. I certainly don't see radical Islamists and Christian fundamentalists discussing their problems over a potluck dinner anytime soon, get it? For my fellow Americans I simply must ask: How many times have YOU seen and/or heard our 'erstwhile' presidente trotting Jesus out like a show pony in a last, desperate attempt to gerner support for his privateering campaign in Iraq and why-oh-why does it not make you all as ill as it does myself?
Karl Marx suggested that "religion is the opiate of the masses", and opiates don't just pacify, they are HIGHLY addictive. Some people seem to need their religion like a junkie needs that next fix. And it's not like there aren't plenty of examples trying desperately to rip those blinders off, either. Sex and mondey scandals among fundie televangelists, Cat'lic priests diddling kids like there's no tomorrow, and let's face it, graphic beheadings on TV certainly don't make ME want to leap out and start studying the handiest Quran I might find.
Before the flamewars begin, let me just reiterate that I have NO doubts that there are hearts and souls of purest intent to be found in every religion. My argument is not against individuals, but the very Institutions of Organized religion themselves that I hold to be intrinsically flawed and stained at the very core. Seek out God, please. But do so based on your own understanding and leave the doctrines and dogma to rot with their pushers.
I do realize that the previous paragraphs seem to convey a very cavalier and possibly even elitist attituede. I'm pretty sure those who know me personally would suggest that while I can BE very cavalier and SEEM elitist, nothing could be further from the truth. The fact is that I try very hard to be as respectful of and open to everyone else around me as much as I possibly can. I sometimes fail quite spectacularly at this, but I really do try. Much of the confusion surriounding my attitude, particularly among those who have never actually met me, stems from the fact that I seem to hold the entire world to impossibly high standards. The fact is, however, that I hold no one to any standard higher than that wo which I expect myself to follow. So while I can sometimes seem hard towards others, I am always exponentially harder on myself.
I am curious, however, as to the general demographics to which I may or may not appeal. I invite all readers this week to briefly introduce themselves via the comments as to their own paths of belief and/or spiritual pursuit. I promise, I will not lambast anyone regardless of faith and will only discuss the point insofar as you are comfortable doing so. It is not my intention to deter anyone from their chosen path, but I am always curious as to who may, or may not, find my discussion topics appealing. My highest appreciation will, in fact, be given towards anyone who cares to participate.
Thank you.
posted by DarkWood | 12:34 AM
9 Comments:
tim boucher said...
I don't BELIEVE anything...
Or, to be more accurate, you don't "believe" that you believe anything. Beliefs themselves are often transparent.
First off, let me just say: Sorry, Tim. I was attempting to moderate comments while being overly tired and found myself just going clicky all over the reject option. I'm pretty sure I got your comment correct, though, to show I really WAS paying attention. :)
My statement of nonbelief was, IN ITSELF, a belief. Probably in poor taste, but it was at least somewhat intended in good humor. Probably the MOST accurate thing to say would be: "I rather loathe anything applied in place of critical thought", which is why I later invite the reader to form their own belief system based more on their own understanding of reality and less on what they've been told by others who allegedly have their "best interest" at heart.
Thanks again for dropping by, though. I find your own bloggings to be very satisfying to read and think upon. I always appreciate the feedback.
DarkWood
Good post, and I agree with your skepticism of established religion. It seems that, with religion, a good concept is run into the ground and perverted with control mechanisms, mental traps, hidden obligations, and other things that, in all, are demeaning and insulting to one's very humanity.
You look at the heart of world religions, though, and you can see that there is generally some good idea there. Someone had a personal experience of the Spirit, or an enlightened moment of some kind, but then over the ages and filtered through the eyes of overzealous followers, the original meaning is obscured or lost altogether.
I don't know if I can sum up my beliefs here or not; I may blog about them sometime soon. The gist of what I believe lies in the ineffable, subjective experiences of life; things about which language can offer, as it has been said (!), only a hint of a hint.
Hi Darkwood - Elitist wouldn't apply, I think, to someone who realizes the trap that any corporation falls into - which is much the religion as you describe ... whether it's money or power... And, hey! You're humble enough to admit that you *do* have beliefs after all!
Perhaps a way to contrast your "beliefs" from dogmatic ones are simply to consider them "principles." The top priority. The bottom line. That which first you seek.
unfortunately the term "dogma" has also been damaged. "Learned opinion" *is* after all a really good way to see our truth-seeking beliefs.
unfortunetely also, while "religion" may suffer a generalized bad rap (always with the exception of the "pure remnant"), I dont see how one can do without it. We will always need to share and abide and rub shoulders with others, and few better ways, besides family, can we do this but among like-minded groups (often better than families). At some point we all need support.
The trick is to figure out if it's possible to do this without needing leaders. While subject to corrupting influences which create the quickest and most extreme divertion of intent (see: US executive branch, King George), the whole singular purpose is, and always will be most appealing.
Only the most die-hard individualist wouldn't drop everything to follow a leader who is, by all evidence, a world shaker who also rocks their world!
Christ v. Anti-Christ. Polorization is both a trap, and a step.
The more i read the more i am completely convinced that oragnized religion was a tool those in power used to keep that power and to keep humans from ever really reaching any true spiritual freedom. It is probably the biggest scam in history. I'm glad to live in a day and age where i can think freely, believe freely or not believe in anything at all.
Great blog Darkwood!
((((((((((Darkwood))))))))
whatacharacter: I suppose my biggest grievance is people's general need to label stuff. Any time folks come together in friendship and fellowship, that's a spiritual gathering to be proud of! I also tend to agree somewhat with scarlet in that there is a sense of social manipulation woven into the fabric of what goes for "religion" these days.
I suppose that I feel it's important to have some rationale, some justification, for one's entire outlook on life and the world. "Just because 'so and so' said so" simply should not be acceptable. If nothing else, I would like to at least encourage people to really think about what they believe and, more importantly, why.
DarkWood
scarletm said...
The more i read the more i am completely convinced that oragnized religion was a tool those in power used to keep that power and to keep humans from ever really reaching any true spiritual freedom. It is probably the biggest scam in history.
now we're talkin
It looks as if you're finding mostly assenting comments and I'm afraid I'll do no better. I think that a lot of the subconscious appeal of religion is the means it offers for world view resolution. It gives people the chance to feel that they can nail down the inner workings of the universe by subscribing to some religion that then automatically delivers a support group that believes in virtually the same things. They don't have to form opinions or ideas and they don't have to argue. It's a self-perpetuating system that not only reproduces through recruitment but also scaremongers its current members into fearing differing opinions. This makes it hard, but not impossible, to ever completely extricate oneself from a religion.
I look forward to future posts and I'm interested in what ways you'll link these views of spirituality to science. You're probably already more aware of this than I, but I do hope you'll be cautious of the pseudoscience revolving around the use of ideas like quantum theory to attempt to scientifically explain every supernatural occurrence. Like, say, "Ah, quantum physics! That explains telepathy! I'm not a quack after all!"
matt said:
They don't have to form opinions or ideas and they don't have to argue. It's a self-perpetuating system that not only reproduces through recruitment but also scaremongers its current members into fearing differing opinions.
And this is exactly what I'm (trying hard NOT to) railing against. :-) Quite frankly, thinking and evolution go hand in hand and I have an extremely difficult time viewing an almost pathological fear of change or "other" as anything other than sheer laziness. And the fact that this "laziness" is actually perpetuated by the system itself seems to tell the lie, at least in my mind, to the fact that religions are inherently self destructive.
...but I do hope you'll be cautious of the pseudoscience revolving around the use of ideas like quantum theory to attempt to scientifically explain every supernatural occurrence.
I wonder if you would mind clarifying just a bit, please. I hear lots of talk and very strong opinions on both sides of the whole pseudoscience argument, but as far as I can tell the very term, "pseudoscience", seems to be used very much like an establishment label to generate humiliation and scorn while warning others away from the aberration.
As far as the debate as to what quantum theory does (and does not) describe, I have to honestly say that I have heard what I consider to be genuinely good points on both sides. I do intend to broach some of this in a very near future article and I will do my best to present that discussion as honestly and unbiased as I can.
I try to keep an open mind and while I like to think that I'm not susceptible to every lark that comes down the path, I also try to keep in mind that societal pariahs are not necessarily entirely wrong just because they are currently outcast. History is certainly replete with many thinkers who were shunned (and even condemned) in their own time for their "out there" ideas only to have those "wacky notions" ultimately win out as accepted truths in the end. So yes, I try to keep a wary eye out for just plain out "bad science", but I also try not to put all my eggs in one basket either.
DarkWood
I wonder if you would mind clarifying just a bit, please.
By pseudoscience, I mean: having the appearance of science, but lacking in the processes of scientific thought and analysis. To my original example, I've heard it argued that quantum entanglement supports the concept of telepathy since two particles "communicate" over a distance instantaneously. While this may work for particles, it has not been shown to work above the quantum level, say for a brain.
While I won't say that telepathy is impossible, it's ridiculous to immediately postulate its existence scientifically based on current quantum theory. It might to neat to ponder on, but there's no evidence. Current quantum theory, while bizarre, has repeatable experiments to back it up. Telepathy is also bizarre, but has nothing so far to back it up. This, of course, is merely an example, and not meant to imply anything going on here.
I suppose it's fair enough to keep an open mind with regard to ideas even if they seem bizarre. I mean, that's pretty much the main tent of quantum mechanics. If it's not bizarre, then it probably doesn't belong to a quantum branch of science. :) It just seems to be very popular for every kook out there to latch onto quantum physics (or whatever the latest "thing" is, I suppose) to push whatever agenda they have. This is by definition, bad science.
Post a Comment
<< Home