Religious outlook

[braddart]

I am a spiritual agnostic (secular) Humanist.

I am spiritual in the sense that I enjoy experiencing wonder at our universe and communing with Nature. I think a sense of mystery or awe is the basis for all spirituality (and thus, religions). I do not, however, FEEL or THINK that there is a God. I rejected the Christian religion (in particular, the Roman Catholic system in which I was raised) at around 13 years old. I have never been compelled (intellectually or emotionally) to believe in a supernatural force or all-powerful being. Admittedly, most concepts of "God" are impossible to verify or falsify (which is why I'm an agnostic as well). I am sympathetic to the Spinozan/Einsteinian/Pan-theistic position of equating "God" with "Nature" but don't feel that this adds anything to my world-view.

I am also a (secular) Humanist. This is a world-view that emphasizes the ability of human beings to affirm their own worth and define their own values in the absence of a God. There is a lot of information on the internet about this fluid "system" of beliefs.

I suspect that all sorts of religious perspectives are present on the polymathy community, what are yours?

[solvealways]

I am a Christian.

I grew up in a somewhat typical conservative protestant tradition which I rejected in some sense in college while pursuing some sort of more meditative humanistic tradition but actually ended up having some deep spiritual experiences and found myself believing in Christ in a real sense. Prior to this I had been learning more and more about the western philosophical traditions where spirituality has had quite an uncomfortable relationship. My religious journey is based on both the experiential aspects of spirituality and the philosophical underpinnings of some commonly held beliefs of: the cosmological proof of God, the need of a basis for ethics/justice so as not to fall into the inevitable nihilism of cultural relativism, but also understanding that codified systems cannot contain the mystery of the "center" of truth (as pointed out by the deconstructionists and post-structuralists). But ambiguity in the world concerning ethics and metaphysics means not an end to inquiry but rather a more careful assessment of reality which calls for a humble agnosticism concerning a great many things but a relentless pursuit of them in an knowingly ironic twist.

Even though I find myself in Christian spiritual practices and scriptural studies, I am still firmly committed to the philosophical journey and dialogue which I willfully accept a framework for evaluating reality which might be called existential/phenomenological (a la Jaspers). In short, I only accept the phenomenal world while bracketing religious convictions so as to encounter the blank slate of being-in-the-world which is common to most so as to see what may be revealed in nature and society. What this has led to is some sort of non-dualism as represented in some points by William James (see: Does Consciousness Exist?) and also the intellectual genealogy of Emerson: Huxley (The Perennial Philosophy); Huston Smith (The Forgotten Truth); Wilber (A Brief History of Everything). This allows a framework of experience to which all can refer and all theories and criticisms may be applied tentatively in a sort of pragmatic speculation.

I feel that it is necessary to allow a great many voices into the sphere of public debate and in order to do so there ought not be a thrust towards universalization of beliefs, as was an underlying thrust of the modernistic enlightenment project, by means of Reason or Logic, which I believe the demise of logical positivism was proof enough that first principles are not simply arrived at without some sort of leap of faith in some respect. This is not to say that that the downfall of logical positivism signaled the end of philosophizing, but instead that created a need for a humble acceptance that humans have a knowledge-producing capacity based on experience and if any one of us were to live someone else's life we would inevitably arrive at the same philosophical conclusions that they currently carry. There is a possibility of an irreparable irony as pointed out by Rorty (Ironists and Metaphysicians), but this also may mean that truth does not fit our conceptual model, or that despite seemingly irreconcilable truth theories/claims, there could be constant discovering or at least a trajectory towards a more just society - whatever that may mean. I say all that to say: it is not that we ought to try to get people to rid themselves of their antiquated superstitions but to realize that all foundations are shaky if allowed to the relentless criticism that all forms of philosophy can do to any belief empirical, rational, religious or otherwise.

I hope this was relevant to this thread and welcome any discussion.

Bill

[Gary]

"I was born into the Hebrew persuasion, but when I got older I converted to narcissism"