Universalism and looking at things from a new perspective

[Lorgar-Aurelian]

A friend of mine (who should be joining the site soon.) Told me I was looking at all of spirituality from a far too narrow perspective and that if I kept it up I would never go anywhere but atheism.

Essentially what he said was that there is a sort of universal spiritual element to life and that we all just use different names to describe it. He told me for instance that he uses Hellenism to work with and be in contact with this spiritual part of life. He also told me I should not be so hard nosed and maybe just relax a bit and I could find my own spiritual guide if I stopped looking at things through a purely empiricist point of view.

I was just wondering what you all thought about this approach?

 

[George-ananda]

I was just wondering what you all thought about this approach?

Sounds to me like you should give serious consideration to your friend's advice. It sounds like it is on the right track to me.

I believe there is only One Truth so we need to look to synchronize as much as possible. That said though, I do think some denominations and traditions have understandings further down the right road than others.

 

[CogentPhilosopher]

A friend of mine (who should be joining the site soon.) Told me I was looking at all of spirituality from a far too narrow perspective and that if I kept it up I would never go anywhere but atheism.

Essentially what he said was that there is a sort of universal spiritual element to life and that we all just use different names to describe it. He told me for instance that he uses Hellenism to work with and be in contact with this spiritual part of life. He also told me I should not be so hard nosed and maybe just relax a bit and I could find my own spiritual guide if I stopped looking at things through a purely empiricist point of view.

I was just wondering what you all thought about this approach?

It is logically fallacious.

1) It assumes that any logic leading to an atheistic worldview is inherently wrong.

2) Many is not most of the different religions of the world directly contradict each other.

3) Spiritual feelings can be explained via natural mechanisms.

4) You can reach any conclusion you want if you decide to just stop applying logic to your thinking. But at that point it is willful ignorance.

 

[CogentPhilosopher]

Sounds to me like you should give serious consideration to your friend's advice. It sounds like it is on the right track to me.

I believe there is only One Truth so we need to look to synchronize as much as possible. That said though, I do think some denominations and traditions have understandings further down the right road than others.

Are you ever going to get around to your proof of that btw?

 

[George-ananda]

Are you ever going to get around to your proof of that btw?

Where did I claim 'proof' btw.

 

[Quintessence]

I don't agree with how they got to that piece of advice (I don't believe in some sort of "universal spiritual element"), but the notion that we sometimes have to let go in order to go in new directions is a valid one. Sometimes, one must unlearn what one has learned and build from the ground up. Go back to the basics, be as the wide-eyed child without any assumptions and taking noting for granted.

On the flip side, there is also something to be said for being in keeping with one's nature. If it is in our nature to adopt a particular point of view, who is to say that is not the course our river should follow? If it satisfies one's life, why bother rocking the boat? There's just no need.

Perhaps the happy-medium way of looking at it is to recognize that if it is one's desire to follow a new course, that we may need to let go of old habits just a bit... but also remember to be true to who we are in that process. Not throw the seeds out with the soil, as it were.

 

[CogentPhilosopher]

Where did I claim 'proof' btw.

Oh so it's not based on proof?

 

[Roboute Guilliman]

It is logically fallacious.

1) It assumes that any logic leading to an atheistic worldview is inherently wrong.

2) Many is not most of the different religions of the world directly contradict each other.

3) Spiritual feelings can be explained via natural mechanisms.

4) You can reach any conclusion you want if you decide to just stop applying logic to your thinking. But at that point it is willful ignorance.

The contradictions are not really important from a universalist perspective It's the fact they believe in something. You can connect to the spiritual through any meansbut you can't take them all as literal truth.

 

[CogentPhilosopher]

The contradictions are not really important from a universalist perspective It's the fact they believe in something. You can connect to the spiritual through any meansbut you can't take them all as literal truth.

What use is metaphorical truth? If the term spiritual can be applied to everything then how is the term useful?

 

[Roboute Guilliman]

What use is metaphorical truth? If the term spiritual can be applied to everything then how is the term useful?

You can use metaphorical truth to explain deeper truths. I don't think the term can be applied to everything. I just use the general term spiritual to describe the various paths people find themselves on.

 

[CogentPhilosopher]

You can use metaphorical truth to explain deeper truths.

Can you demonstrate this?

 

[Lorgar-Aurelian]

The contradictions are not really important from a universalist perspective It's the fact they believe in something. You can connect to the spiritual through any meansbut you can't take them all as literal truth.

What use is metaphorical truth? If the term spiritual can be applied to everything then how is the term useful?

I think cogent has a point since you can't really describe spiritual. It sounds like a general please everyone kind of mentality

 

[Roboute Guilliman]

I think cogent has a point since you can't really describe spiritual. It sounds like a general please everyone kind of mentality

You should know by now that you can only gain an understanding of the spiritual through experience.

 

[Lorgar-Aurelian]

You should know by now that you can only gain an understanding of the spiritual through experience.

But that is the thing, can't you explain away like 90% of religious experience if not 100 through material means? I don't think you have to turn to the spiritual to explain the spiritual. Which makes me wonder, you've said you don't think the Hellenistic gods are real in the sense that their stories are true. How can you know anything about the gods ?

 

[Roboute Guilliman]

But that is the thing, can't you explain away like 90% of religious experience if not 100 through material means? I don't think you have to turn to the spiritual to explain the spiritual. Which makes me wonder, you've said you don't think the Hellenistic gods are real in the sense that their stories are true. How can you know anything about the gods ?

I think we've gone through this about 10000000000 times by now. YOu have to keep the spiritual to the spiritual and the empirical to the empirical.

 

[Lorgar-Aurelian]

It is logically fallacious.

1) It assumes that any logic leading to an atheistic worldview is inherently wrong.

2) Many is not most of the different religions of the world directly contradict each other.

3) Spiritual feelings can be explained via natural mechanisms.

4) You can reach any conclusion you want if you decide to just stop applying logic to your thinking. But at that point it is willful ignorance.

In general this sort of thing Is the reason I am more or less a nihilist.

 

[CogentPhilosopher]

I think we've gone through this about 10000000000 times by now. YOu have to keep the spiritual to the spiritual and the empirical to the empirical.

If the spiritual cannot be measured empirically then how do you know it is not simply emotions?

 

[Quintessence]

But that is the thing, can't you explain away like 90% of religious experience if not 100 through material means?

Bear in mind the converse is also true.

 

[sayak83]

A friend of mine (who should be joining the site soon.) Told me I was looking at all of spirituality from a far too narrow perspective and that if I kept it up I would never go anywhere but atheism.

Essentially what he said was that there is a sort of universal spiritual element to life and that we all just use different names to describe it. He told me for instance that he uses Hellenism to work with and be in contact with this spiritual part of life. He also told me I should not be so hard nosed and maybe just relax a bit and I could find my own spiritual guide if I stopped looking at things through a purely empiricist point of view.

I was just wondering what you all thought about this approach?

Could you share what you have tried so for, how and for how long? What is it that you are looking for? There is nothing wrong with being a skeptic or an atheist, and your questions seem to suggest that your mind tends towards that direction. But clearly that seems unsatisfactory to you as well, otherwise you would not be looking into other stuff.

 

[crossfire]

A friend of mine (who should be joining the site soon.) Told me I was looking at all of spirituality from a far too narrow perspective and that if I kept it up I would never go anywhere but atheism.

Essentially what he said was that there is a sort of universal spiritual element to life and that we all just use different names to describe it. He told me for instance that he uses Hellenism to work with and be in contact with this spiritual part of life. He also told me I should not be so hard nosed and maybe just relax a bit and I could find my own spiritual guide if I stopped looking at things through a purely empiricist point of view.

I was just wondering what you all thought about this approach?

If you want to take the empirical approach to this, try spending some time in a sensory deprivation tank. (Remove the basis for empiricism--sensory measurement--and see what's left to work with.)