The primary message concerning religion and spirituality

In reading previous articles, posts, summaries, and other writings from this seeker relating to the overall quest for religious or spiritual fulfillment, enlightenment, inner peace, and harmony, one might be a bit confused.

What is the central message – the main theme – I wish to convey with this blog, exactly?

globe on black backgroundWell, I’ll be the first to admit that I’ve stumbled and erred in some of these blog posts and other, related writings dealing with religion and spirituality, and especially spiritual seeking. Not only have I gone astray on occasion; I continue to screw up every now and then, and perhaps even offend some readers and visitors from time to time.

I would like to think that any errant statements about religion and spirituality have resulted from my sometimes-too-strong and heartfelt desire to spread the truth, my efforts to encourage others, and my attempts to discourage wrong thinking; after all, this spiritual seeking — this ongoing search for "religious truth" — is a subject to which I have dedicated a statistically significant portion of my adult life. And I know, with no doubt whatsoever, that I will continue to spend an inordinate amount (far, far, far "too much") of my very limited time reading and writing about these matters, researching related material, and deeply reflecting upon these concepts and themes frequently — and as objectively as possible.

But make no mistake: The fideistic religious fundamentalists who are trying to do away with the separation of church and state — and would love to transform America into a Bible-based society — have lost the right to avoid ridicule. Because they are making every effort to force fundamentalist religion into national politics, it is not right to stay quiet.

Therefore — in addition to encouraging the adoption of basic, universal spiritual principles — we will strive to discourage fellow Americans from blindly following irrational, divisive, harmful, untrue, fideistic fundamentalist religions.

Considering those who are dedicated, strong, and vocal advocates of New Thought-style spiritual/religious beliefs… how can we successfully maintain friendships with followers of fideism? How can we possibly get along with ultra-conservative religious fundamentalists? How can we get along with militant atheists, or with steadfast followers of Islam?

The simple answer: Esprit de corps.

Our camaraderie is strengthened by focusing on the wonderful, positive, and numerous similarities of our beliefs and not upon the differences. Celebrating our shared beliefs is infinitely more satisfying and gratifying than engaging in endless, circular debates upon the points on which we are not in agreement. (In truth, most such points are of the sort that are impossible for anyone, anywhere, at any time to prove… so why on earth do we even go there in the first place?)

I’m not saying that differences don’t exist, or even that such differences are minimal or unimportant. These inter-religious variances can be significant; worse, such disparities can run deep, build thick walls, and even cause emotions to skyrocket, often unpredictably.

This is precisely why "they" (you know, they!) recommend against broaching the subjects of religion and politics in certain settings.

Even so, in viewing this writer’s beliefs alongside those of a friend of mine who happens to be a staunch Christian fundamentalist, I believe most would find that our beliefs about what’s right and what’s wrong contain far more agreement than discordance. This is especially true when it comes to the more practical matters encountered in everyday life — such as how we ought to treat one another. And don’t these practical matters come up most frequently? Aren’t they the ones that really matter when it comes to relationships and their maintenance, whether at home, work, or school? Yes, they are. Supernatural stuff matters less.

moonOops – I went off on quite a tangent there — and I didn’t even answer the main question. Talk about getting sidetracked…

I would say that the central message I wish to convey to every single person who reads this blog is the same message relayed to the world by HHDL (the Dalai Lama) in his 2011 book, Beyond Religion: Ethics for a Whole World:

The proper way forward for all of humanity is to embrace basic, universal spiritual principles apart from any religious or cultural context, setting aside all of the differing ideologies, religion-specific exhortations, culture-specific practices, supernatural themes, and so forth.

While it’s not likely that any single religion would or could ever be accepted by all of humanity (for various reasons), it is – I believe – quite reasonable to assume that a broadly accepted set of secular ethics could accomplish wonderful and heretofore unseen peace, happiness, and unity on a global scale — if only such a message could be spread around the world.

There are several reasons that one or more of the existing religions couldn’t or wouldn’t ever be accepted by mankind as a whole. (This might be an excellent subject for a subsequent post, or even a series of posts…)

To sum them up briefly, some religions have a great deal to do with the culture(s) from which they sprang. Many religions — especially the various fundamentalist-style interpretations of certain religions — contain magical, fantastical, and/or supernatural themes that entirely eliminate any possibility of their global acceptance or adoption. In these more enlightened times (by some standards, anyway), ever-increasing numbers of people are more inclined to view things from realistic, rational, logical, or scientific viewpoints. The digital age is ushering in a new era that will (hopefully) eventually allow anyone to read, learn, and educate themselves to a virtually unlimited extent. The increasingly ubiquitous nature of scientific knowledge, theory, discovery, etc. will lead to even broader preference for rational, logically sound accounts and beliefs.

Inherent harmony of major world religions

Along with many other critical thinkers, this writer believes that the major themes of world religions — that is, when properly interpreted and correctly understoodare actually in agreement. In this view, the magical, fantastical, and/or supernatural themes of various religions are often considered to be poetic devices or other literary styles that do not attempt or purport to convey literal, historical, or scientific facts.

The harmony of world religions seems evident in how mankind is taught to relate to others (enemies, neighbors, etc.) as well as to self. This is the stuff of basic, universal spiritual principles — the kind of secular ethics that truly possesses the potential to save mankind from itself.

If this type of enlightenment could only reach the tipping point, then the potential for worldwide unity, happiness, sustainable quality of living, and so on could very well grow exponentially — leading to a degree of cooperation and collaboration that can scarcely be imagined today.

This post was started on Thursday, February 23, 2012.

Population decline as a problem

lots of people; global population problemsNOTE: As ridiculous as it sounds, some people actually do believe the globe is under-populated. Yep, I said under-populated. For whatever reason, I was moved to jot down some thoughts when I ran across this line of thinking. Thanks for reading!

This text was posted as a comment in response to a forum entry from a person who implied global overpopulation is not an issue and that underpopulation is more of a problem.

Worldometers, a part of the Real Time Statistics Project, is one of the best sites I have found that maintains a constant tally of vital world statistics. (Thanks to Mike B. of Nashville for providing this link.) World population, which topped 7 billion souls this year (2011), is the first statistic listed among many. Other variables measured on this site 24-7 relate to government expenditure, food, water, money, and health.

It’s interesting to read what some people are coerced into believing when they accept as fact anything they hear in church or in the newspaper. (Of course, those who honestly want to learn more about reality and truth typically consult a wide range of reasonably objective resources, not just a handful of opinionated entities: Objective research is critical for genuine seekers of truth.)

The relevant example is the belief that global overpopulation is not an issue, and alternatively, that population decline is actually the real problem. (According to this forum and other sources, there are people who actually believe this.)

world population graphThe City Data forum comment: Have you ever flown over the midwest and west or huge swaths of Canada? We’ve got plenty of room. The problem is not the population. The problem is too much population in certain places.

lots of people; global populationBy the way, there are much worse things to believe; for instance, Michele Bachmann and her supporters might believe that the Founding Fathers of the United States worked tirelessly to abolish slavery (not true in any way)!

It’s quite true that the population of some nations is on the decline; however, it is not true that such declining populations represent any kind of real problem for the planet overall.

Populations with negative growth numbers do have some legitimate concerns, such as future tax revenues, the cost of caring for an aging population, the destiny of their country, etc.

To be fair, there are a number of ways to look at the issue of world population. The comment to which I responded came from the perspective of the ratio of people to available land. Granted, this is a rational perspective, but I don’t believe it is the best perspective from which to opine on global population issues; after all, globally available land will probably never be equally divided and then apportioned to individuals.

More helpful and realistic ways to examine the potential issues of global population growth might include food production and distribution, the availability of drinking water, and regional politics.

It’s entirely possible that I have misunderstood what I’ve read and that the commenter to which I responded doesn’t actually believe underpopulation is a serious global issue; however, for those that really do believe underpopulation is a problem, I have a couple of questions.

  • Are generally accepted population statistics wrong? (Example: Population clock
  • How many is too many?
  • Do you believe that man should continue procreating (regardless of any population issues), because of religious beliefs?
  • To user Ozarks21: When you say that flying in a plane reveals vast unpopulated areas, does that mean you’d prefer to see all areas populated?

If you do believe underpopulation is a more serious problem than overpopulation, I strongly support your right to believe it, just as I support your right to believe and follow whatever religion you want.

Could it be that most people who say that overpopulation is myth and that underpopulation is a real problem, also believe that a talking snake caused the downfall of mankind, or that the universe was created less than 10,000 years ago in six literal, 24-hour days? Perhaps. I’m just sayin’…

Peace,
Samana

Resources: World population

Wednesday, August 17, 2011

Our beliefs compared to agnosticism

written Tuesday, March 15, 2011
When I am asked for my own religious affiliation, I usually don’t say “agnosticism.” One reason I don’t strongly favor classifying belief systems like my own as “mere” agnosticm is that I don’t seem to fit the profile of the most apparently common connotations of the word “agnostic.” According to what I often read and hear, a few of the frequently assumed characteristics of what it means to be an agnostic include the following:

• The belief that there may or may not be a real “God” – it can’t be known
• Not really caring one way or another whether a “God” exists
• A flippant attitude about religion and spirituality
• The opinion that studying matters of religion and spirituality are a waste of time
• Considering religious and spiritual matters to be relatively unimportant

While all of the above do not necessarily mesh with “official” definitions of agnosticism, I believe they are fair characterizations of the assumptions often made by religious people about agnostics. Only the first item above applies to textbook agnostics: the belief that there may or may not be a real “God,” or that such cannot be truly known by man.

The truth is this: I care a great deal about religious and spiritual matters – and how well they may or may not reflect truth and reality. If I did not care about these things, then I wouldn’t make the time and effort to study these subjects and write about them as I do.

I should also admit that my first answer (when asked about my religious affiliation) is not Christianity, either – even though I believe I understand and adhere to originally intended message of Jesus as a moral teacher. The reason it is not: in modern America, the designation “Christian” is typically assumed to mean “Christian fundamentalist” or “Christian evangelical”- implying that I take the Bible literally and believe all other paths are not only in error, but doomed. Of course, I subscribe to no such closed-minded view.

Ongoing search for truth

What I am after is the truth. Yes, I believe it is certain that these kinds of truths cannot be known for sure by man at this time in history, given the current limitations of science. Even so, I see no reason to avoid this search for truth; for even though we cannot really know, I believe we can move toward knowing – that we can get closer to the truth.

We can consider all the evidence, options, possibilities, and belief systems and thus discover more about these things than would otherwise be determinable. Through the application of honest, objective research (that is, with the most objectivity we can possibly muster, given that we are human beings and are thus subject to bias), I believe we can get closer to the truth than those who do not spend large amounts of time and effort looking into these important matters.

Is it better to study these matters, or to ignore them and pursue other interests? I think many people suffer from a level of complacency when it comes to matters of belief and faith; however, while some people feel driven to look into the truths behind religious and spiritual matters, others do not seem to have this need. Indeed, many who have this complacency do not appear to suffer from it. I know people in both categories. I don’t know if there is a one-size-fits-all answer to that question.

MY beliefs vs. OUR beliefs

I will occasionally refer to “my belief system” in general as being “our beliefs” for one simple reason: these are not merely the beliefs of one seemingly strange, nonconformist, freethinking individual! In fact, a great many people share the views I am promoting. Many of them would be happy to tell you so. Certain others would not want the public to know what their real beliefs are, simply because they feel the need to portray the appearance of subscribing to a version of fundamentalist Christianity or evangelical Christianity for various reasons (often social ones).

It is widely accepted that the views of others should not be used as evidence that those particular beliefs are true, and we agree. The belief that what others think is evidence of truth is a common logical fallacy, or error in reasoning. Nevertheless, it is interesting and worthwhile to consider the beliefs of others.

Examples of belief systems that share a significant portion of the specific views promoted by this blog:

Examples of famous historical figures who have influenced my beliefs:

Examples of modern writers and thinkers who have influenced my beliefs:

Resources

Science, religion, and conspiracy theory:

Interesting American beliefs, per the polls

Executive summary: (provided in this case due to length) This post touches on more subjects than it should: opinion polls, a hopeful view of science and religion, the two main logical fallacies used or implied in opinion poll results, 9/11 conspiracy theory, poll results about American beliefs, relationship of IQ and education level to supernatural belief systems, beliefs about creationism and evolution, interpreting ambiguous poll questions, weighing the human soul, and quite a few resources on the web for all these subjects. I may soon break this post up into several smaller, more succinct and cohesive posts.

We Americans seem to be utterly hooked on polls. Poll results can be boring, encouraging, discouraging, enthralling, or even shocking in some cases – particularly with regard to those subjects we regard with passion and zeal. Sure, polls get old and wear us out on occasion (most notably in politics, during an election cycle), but our interest always returns. Many of us find opinion polls about religion, science, belief, and spirituality to be among the most interesting of them all.

Relationship of science and religion

The relationship between science and religion is often considered to be tenuous and uneasy at best; however, I agree with those who view science and religion as a false dichotomy.

The way I see it, truth is truth; and even though mankind has only just begun to discover truth, I believe this lively pair will eventually enjoy reconciliation. However, science and religion probably won’t enjoy real harmony until serious challenges to long-held beliefs are fully worked through and ultimately resolved. (Idealistic? Very.) Given that the age of science is still in its infancy, I have the feeling the marriage of science and religion is still a long ways off – but this doesn’t mean we shouldn’t make every effort to help them get along nicely.

Polls and logical fallacies

Poll results are, in a sense, a wide open door to the employment of logical fallacies (mistakes made in the process of human reasoning) – the argumentum ad populem fallacy in particular, and to a lesser extent, the appeal to authority. Spin masters are often paid incredible salaries for their ability to apply creativity to statistical reporting for the purpose of swaying the largely gullible populous in a certain direction by making a particular person, place, thing, event, etc. seem superior to the alternative choices.

One should be wary of poll results and their interpretation; if the findings of a particular poll are truly important to you for any reason, be sure to ask the right questions and then frame the results in the appropriate context.

Argumentum ad populem is the ultimate implied poll-related logical fallacy because it wants us to believe that X is true simply because Y (%), a certain number (or percentage) of people, believe it to be true. It never ceases to amaze, amuse, and sometimes frustrate me that some folks actually consider majority opinion (such as a given percentage of Americans who believe in that particular thing [X]) as being evidence that X is factual and true. Of course, as to the reality or truth of the point in question, it doesn’t matter how many people believe or disbelieve in X. It’s quite possible for 98% percent of Americans to wholeheartedly believe in a falsehood while 2% actually know the truth; in this sense, numbers and percentages are irrelevant. This commonplace error in reasoning goes by many names, including “appeal to the masses,” “appeal to belief,” “appeal to the people,” “appeal to the majority,” “authority of the many,” “argument by consensus,” “bandwagon fallacy,” “argumentum ad numerum,” etc.

Another popular logical fallacy, often called the “argument from authority” or “appeal to authority” (I’m suddenly reminded of Eric Cartman) is also frequently used in attempts to spin poll results. It concludes X to be true because Y (e.g., a group of educated scientists, the Pope, Mom and Dad) believe X to be true. If the argument from authority sounds a lot like the aforementioned bandwagon fallacy, you’re right: both are fallacies of relevance (one of the many categories of reasoning errors). “Relevance” makes perfect sense; after all, who believes something and how many people believe something are completely irrelevant to how true that particular something might be.

9/11 conspiracy theories

Many Americans still believe that the U.S. played a role in 9/11.

A 2006 poll taken by Scripps Howard along with Ohio University showed that over one third of the American public suspects that federal officials assisted in the 9/11 terrorist attacks, or otherwise took no action to stop the attacks in order to allow the U.S. to go to war. The most prominent theory is that the WTC collapses were the result of controlled demolitions (rather than structural weakening due to high heat from fire). Another prominent belief is that the Pentagon was hit by a missile launched by elements from inside the U.S. government, or that a commercial airliner was allowed to crash into the Pentagon due to a purposeful stand-down of the U.S. military. Various motives are often cited by conspiracy theorists which often include justifying the Afghanistan and Iraq invasions and strategic interests in the Middle East such as oil pipelines.

Even well into into 2011, those old 9/11-related conspiracy theories seem to have remained the number one theorized conspiracy in the world, according to this Feb. 2011 list.

According to the 2009 Harris Poll
40% of American adults believe in creationism as per the Old Testament.
45% believe in Darwin’s theory of evolution.
60% of American adults believe that the devil actually exists.
42% of Americans believe in ghosts.
32% believe in UFOs.
26% of American adults believe in astrology.
23% believe in witches.
20% believe in reincarnation, that they were once someone else.

Education, IQ, and religious belief systems

The degree of literal religious belief one holds – in small part, at least – depends upon one’s education level; there was found to be a very strong negative correlation between the level of education and paranormal beliefs. The more education one had received, the less likely the respondent was to hold a literal paranormal belief — such as in ghosts, or a real, existing evil force such as the devil, for instance. The lower the level of education of the respondent, the greater was the likelihood of paranormal and/or literal religious beliefs.

Likewise, a strong negative correlation has likewise been shown in numerous comparisons of IQ and religious belief. This is not meant to be surprising, as this has been a standard trend in the kinds of polls that track this information as early as the 1920s. Likewise, religious readers should not feel slighted in the least: there are certainly quite a few intelligent religious folks – and plenty of slow atheists and freethinkers, to boot! Another reminder: using intelligence or education as evidence of a particular belief, while very interesting, is yet another fallacy of relevance when it comes down to proof.

Evolution, creationism, and intelligent design

It is interesting to note that most polls no longer seem to imply a strict choice between evolution and God; most questions concerning creationism and evolution now include a third option of intelligent design or God-guided evolution (in addition to the usual “don’t know” or “no opinion” answer). It is very interesting how quickly evolution has come to be accepted in some form by most people. Thankfully — as of 2005, at least — a respectable percentage of Americans would not be upset about whether creationism or evolution was taught at their children’s school; however, 30% of Americans at that time would be upset if only evolution were taught and creationism not. (One might wonder how this number is trending today; hopefully, an attitude of tolerance is gaining.)

As previously stated, four out of ten American adults currently believe in strict creationism; that is, they believe that God created humans in their present form around 10,000 years ago. (Does that mean this group in general also rejects scientific dating methods and dinosaurs? Is this a fair assumption – anyone?)

This number is slightly down from past years. Interestingly, among Republicans, the belief in strict creationism jumps from 40% all the way up to 60%! Such a large percentage of Republicans apparently subscribes to something akin to Young Earth Creationism: interesting. If this is accurate, then it serves as the primary explanation for the Bush administration’s lackluster (at best) attitude toward science.

Thirty-eight percent (38%) of polled American adults now believe that God has been guiding an evolutionary process by which humans have developed from less advanced life forms over millions of years. Sixteen percent (16%) of American adults — up slightly from years past — believe in “secular evolution,” or that humans developed over millions of years without God’s involvement.

In looking at the Gallup poll results over the years, it appears fewer and fewer people believe are willing to believe that God created man in man’s present form; conversely, the belief in secular evolution seems to be on a slow, gradual rise in the United States.

(NOTE: Please see the references below for links to other articles, studies, and polls used in this post and other relevant, potentially worthwhile resources.)

Interpreting poll questions

One of my first questions regarding opinion polls (especially about supernatural beliefs and other loosely defined subjects) would be with regard to the precise meaning of the questions themselves, or the assumptions that should be used in the polling process. For example, exactly what does it mean to “believe in witches”? It could represent:

  • a belief that some people honestly subscribe to Wicca-like belief systems (very true) – or, quite differently, it could indicate
  • the belief that supernatural spells are successfully cast upon others by modern witches (highly dubious).

These two interpretations of the exact same question are very different, and one must wonder whether the polling process takes this into account. If not, then it seems the poll results would be less meaningful -or perhaps devoid of meaning altogether.

UFOs represent a fascinating subject. As far as opinion polling goes, though, what are the ground rules and base definitions that apply to questions about UFOs? Does “believing in UFOs” mean:

  1. Objects have been seen in the skies throughout history that could not be positively identified.
    True. This is perfectly believable and is certainly factual, as far as this author can tell – unless every single object ever seen in the sky by humans of all time has been positively identified! As certainly as I now live and breathe and write these words, at least one object seen in the sky throughout history was never positively identified and could thus be considered to be an unidentified flying object, or a UFO.
  2. Intelligent life (something akin to little green men, or perhaps the more recently popularized type of alien known as the Grays) has visited our planet using a method of travel far more technically advanced than our own.
    Dubious, or at least questionable (the Fermi paradox). Visitation of earth by such beings is a somewhat far-fetched notion according to many scientists, given that traveling the required distance is beyond all known technology, coupled with the probable extreme rarity of technologically advanced beings in the universe. FYI, I freely grant the existence of many other life forms throughout the massive universe, but intelligent life is another matter entirely.

The two assumptions above are light years apart (pun phun). Such wildly varying understandings, viewpoints, assumptions, and interpretations in opinion polling probably makes answers to such questions virtually meaningless, at least in some cases. That said, the answers are also occasionally interesting!

Weighing the human soul

Do some people actually believe that proof of the soul lies in the weight difference of a body just before and after death? According to sillybeliefs.com, this is just an urban myth:

[Jeanette] Wilson was claiming that scientists have weighed the human soul. The interviewer tried to get her to explain how a spiritual, immaterial soul that contains no mass, and therefore no weight, can be weighed. I don’t think Wilson even grasped the problem with her argument, merely stating that she didn’t understand the details, but that the scientists knew what they were doing. She couldn’t name the scientists, or when or where their experiments were carried out. In fact her belief that the soul has been weighed is an urban myth, and can be traced to a Dr. Duncan MacDougall of Haverhill, Massachusetts. He did attempt this in 1907, but his experiments were flawed and the results are not accepted. (http://www.sillybeliefs.com/wilson.html#heading-1b)

(NOTE: Many more obscure beliefs can be found at sillybeliefs.com [“Scams and Delusions Exposed!”], based in New Zealand.)

In its section about religious urban myths, snopes.com – the “Urban Legend Reference Pages” – addresses the issue of human soul-weighing and goes into great detail about the history of related experiments (making this notion more than just an urban myth). Apparently, the 2003 film 21 Grams was based on this belief.

Much more to come

The convergence of religion, spirituality, science, reason, logic, philosophy, history, et al — is simply too fascinating and important to ignore. I’ll be posting much more on related subjects here in the future.

NOTE: This post was written on Wednesday, January 5, 2011, then updated and posted to this new blog (Search for truth at allisnow.com) on Thursday, March 10, 2011. This is the first post to this blog, which will serve as the home of my writings about religion, science, and spirituality until further notice. (I’m considering creating a separate blog at greenism.org to serve as the primary location for this subject matter.) Thanks for reading this. I have not publicized this blog yet, so I probably sent you this link. I would appreciate any comments, positive or negative. I appreciate your time and I hope you found this to be entertaining, interesting, or even enlightening to some degree.

Resources

Relationship between science and religion

Opinion polls

Logical fallacies

Conspiracy theory

Weighing the soul

Polls about beliefs

Intelligence, education, and supernatural beliefs