Is it Acceptable to Be A Spiritual Person and An Anarchist? Religious?

[Very Ape]

I'm not super serious about religion but I am a practicing Buddhist - I meditate once a week at the local Shambala Center for an hour and I also study Christian philosophy as well as take an interest in other religious beliefs.

 

I've also had some very strange experiences that I can't explain nor would I unless I knew someone really well. I think there is a spiritual side to Anarchy that is very similar to many religious beliefs particularly Buddhism which places a lot of responsibility on the individual. In any religious texts, the way I read some of them, I see a lot of discussion about the individual and their relationship with a higher power. So religious institutionalism interferes with that and historically subjugated the individual via a religious hierarchy preventing the individual from having their own experience or saying it was heresy. The State has been even worse IMO - completely destroying or undermining personal and spiritual growth.

 

There are a lot of Christian Philosophers who talk about the dangers of "messianistic governments" or the folly of trying to bring utopia to earth as a delusional and destructive path (Reinhold Niebuhr comes to mind). Others talk about how what is possible for an individual is impossible for the masses (Gurdjieff). I see these as Anarchistic beliefs and there should be a sort of natural alliance between these kinds of thinkers and atheist Anarchists but instead I see a lot of in-house fighting and suspicion of people who are more spiritually seeking.

 

I hope these different branches can come together because we frankly need each other and have a common enemy right now. I don't think I even need to mention who they are...

 

BTW - if you want to read about some of the last true Christians to have lived on Earth read about the branches of Christianity that went EAST through Russia, Armenia and Siberia. Here is one such family that fled Stalin's purges and his alone in the taiga of Siberia for decades (I think the daughter is still alive):

 

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/for-40-years-this-russian-family-was-cut-off-from-all-human-contact-unaware-of-world-war-ii-7354256/

[Donnadogsoth]

I'm not super serious about religion but I am a practicing Buddhist - I meditate once a week at the local Shambala Center for an hour and I also study Christian philosophy as well as take an interest in other religious beliefs.

 

I've also had some very strange experiences that I can't explain nor would I unless I knew someone really well. I think there is a spiritual side to Anarchy that is very similar to many religious beliefs particularly Buddhism which places a lot of responsibility on the individual. In any religious texts, the way I read some of them, I see a lot of discussion about the individual and their relationship with a higher power. So religious institutionalism interferes with that and historically subjugated the individual via a religious hierarchy preventing the individual from having their own experience or saying it was heresy. The State has been even worse IMO - completely destroying or undermining personal and spiritual growth.

 

There are a lot of Christian Philosophers who talk about the dangers of "messianistic governments" or the folly of trying to bring utopia to earth as a delusional and destructive path (Reinhold Niebuhr comes to mind). Others talk about how what is possible for an individual is impossible for the masses (Gurdjieff). I see these as Anarchistic beliefs and there should be a sort of natural alliance between these kinds of thinkers and atheist Anarchists but instead I see a lot of in-house fighting and suspicion of people who are more spiritually seeking.

 

I hope these different branches can come together because we frankly need each other and have a common enemy right now. I don't think I even need to mention who they are...

 

BTW - if you want to read about some of the last true Christians to have lived on Earth read about the branches of Christianity that went EAST through Russia, Armenia and Siberia. Here is one such family that fled Stalin's purges and his alone in the taiga of Siberia for decades (I think the daughter is still alive):

 

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/for-40-years-this-russian-family-was-cut-off-from-all-human-contact-unaware-of-world-war-ii-7354256/

 

Weren't there monasteries and convents in Christendom's history where one could go to seek a more authentic spiritual experience of God?  Weren't there Christian mystics?  What experiences were denied the believer by the Church?  Magic mushrooms?  Tribal dancing?

[Very Ape]

They were. Hermeticism is also being lost to the west and it very much bothers me. There was this guy living in Baxter State Park in Maine for like a decade completely in the woods and when they finally tracked him down they put him in a mental facility right away. That story kind of sent a very strong message to me that the State doesn't want us having those connections to the "other side" or nature or the unknown, whatever you want to call it. And I think it's having a negative effect on everyone who is stuck in the current digital matrix system and doesn't get outside or get "quiet" ever. And I'm a computer science major! I also think introverts are being targeted and exploited more and more. There's a lot of interrelated problems here obviously.

 

Btw if you do shrooms or other psychedelic drug for the first time make sure it's near an open space or in the woods with a few people you know. Stay away from crowds, urban areas, crammed indoors, police, family, etc.

[Will Torbald]

I'm not super serious about religion but I am a practicing Buddhist - I meditate once a week at the local Shambala Center for an hour and I also study Christian philosophy as well as take an interest in other religious beliefs.

 

Have you read Stef's book on atheism? Or any book on atheism at all?

 

Regarding your title question, I don't see how it would be unacceptable. Anarchism is just a political theory. If you wanted to be a philosopher it would be unacceptable, however, but you didn't ask that.

[dsayers]

There are a lot of Christian Philosophers who talk about the dangers of "messianistic governments" or the folly of trying to bring utopia to earth as a delusional and destructive path (Reinhold Niebuhr comes to mind). Others talk about how what is possible for an individual is impossible for the masses (Gurdjieff). I see these as Anarchistic beliefs

I take issue with the phrase "Anarchistic beliefs." Is the claim "people do not exist in different, opposing moral categories" not an accurate description of the real world? To me, the word "Anarchist" means somebody who accepts this. If it's an objective claim whose truth value is true, I think it's dismissive to refer to it as a belief.

 

I also take issue with "the folly of trying to bring utopia to earth as a delusional and destructive path." First of all, the word utopia is poisoning the well. Secondly, prescribing that people do nothing to improve the world around them would be the destructive path. Finally, to do this for the reason that they believe there's an afterlife is precisely why the irrational are understatedly dangerous people.

 

In any religious texts, the way I read some of them, I see a lot of discussion about the individual and their relationship with a higher power. So religious institutionalism interferes with that and historically subjugated the individual via a religious hierarchy preventing the individual from having their own experience or saying it was heresy.

In keeping with defining our terms for the sake of clear discourse, "religious texts" is another way of saying "something a human wrote down one time." You're basically saying that they are inherently infallible and that flawed institutions built on top of them somehow sully them. The error actually begins with the text if it says (for example) "don't murder because I said so" or "don't murder because I will punish you" instead of "murder is the simultaneous acceptance and rejection of property rights." For a corrupt institution to be built atop of the former follows.

 

I hope these different branches can come together because we frankly need each other and have a common enemy right now. I don't think I even need to mention who they are...

The common enemy is the State, which is a religion. Saying that people who think rationally need to ally the irrational to fend off other irrationals is irrational. There's only one way to meaningfully divide people: those who are willing to initiate the use of force to achieve their goals and those who will not. Having a child is the creation of a positive obligation to that child to protect and nurture them until such a time as they're able to do so for themselves. This entails many things, not the least of which is the primary wisdom of calling things by their proper names. Religiosity isn't just irrational, it is anti-rational when inflicted upon a developing mind. As this is a violation of the aforementioned obligation, it IS the initiation of the use of force.

 

Rational thought in our current world is a lot like the agent program (woman in red dress) scene of The Matrix. I will try and unplug as many minds as I can. However, until they become unplugged, they are a part of that system, and therefore a threat to rational thought. I don't care how pretty that red dress is, I'm more focused that that. Distraction is so very very powerful :*(

[Jot]

It doesn't matter what you are, it matters the reason for which you ascribe to that position.

 

All philosophical convictions should be reducible to reason or be synonymous with reason.

Ex. Anarchism = reason

      Atheism = reason

      Communism = not reason 

      Religion = not reason

      Spirituality = not reason.

 

Now, if you have truth as a personal value then you MUST choose only those which abide by reason. Otherwise drop the truth as a value.

[Pelafina]

There is no proof that spiritual beings don't exist, so reason and evidence would indicate that it is very acceptable for you to practice spiritual and religious practices.  Anyone who tells you otherwise is using their clouded mind to put a judgment onto you because they want you to believe as they do -- they want you to hold the same faith that they hold.  Don't listen to them.

[ResurrectMyself]

There is no proof that spiritual beings don't exist, so reason and evidence would indicate that it is very acceptable for you to practice spiritual and religious practices.  Anyone who tells you otherwise is using their clouded mind to put a judgment onto you because they want you to believe as they do -- they want you to hold the same faith that they hold.  Don't listen to them.

There is no proof that I don't have an invisible dragon in my garage.

Feel free to send me donations for food.

[Very Ape]

There is no proof that I don't have an invisible dragon in my garage.

Feel free to send me donations for food.

 

Prove to me that there are infinitely many prime numbers - since you can not and since it is impossible to prove such a thing I must therefore conclude there are not infinitely prime numbers.

 

Unfortunately if you reverse this argument (i.e. prove there are not infinitely prime numbers) you wind up with the same conundrum.

 

Now - for those claiming to be the high priests of logic and reason here - what is the logical mistake I made?

 

That is the same logical mistake you are making. Please avoid using hyperbolic analogies about magic dragons in your garage to justify what is clearly a logical error.

 

There is no proof either way therefore...

 

Therefore NOTHING

[Will Torbald]

Prove to me that there are infinitely many prime numbers - since you can not and since it is impossible to prove such a thing I must therefore conclude there are not infinitely prime numbers.

 

Unfortunately if you reverse this argument (i.e. prove there are not infinitely prime numbers) you wind up with the same conundrum.

 

Now - for those claiming to be the high priests of logic and reason here - what is the logical mistake I made?

 

That is the same logical mistake you are making. Please avoid using hyperbolic analogies about magic dragons in your garage to justify what is clearly a logical error.

 

There is no proof either way therefore...

 

Therefore NOTHING

 

The logical error of believing the impossible to be possible.

[Pelafina]

The logical error of believing the impossible to be possible.

 

Your claim that X is impossible is purely based on faith, as you offer no proof, nor logical argument, that it is impossible.  

There is no proof that I don't have an invisible dragon in my garage.

 

 

If there is no proof that A is true, it does not follow that NOT A is true.  

[Very Ape]

The logical error of believing the impossible to be possible.

 

Sorry, its been a while and I am at work. I was trying to find a simple example. There are infinitely many primes and even countably infinite (my mistake).

 

Prove the following:

 

There exists a polynomial time generator of prime numbers. In other words given any prime number P(i) it can find the next prime number P(i+1) such that the numbers of algorithmic steps is a polynomial of P

 

If you can not prove it I assume it does not exist...

 

Its the same mistake you are making

OK I am getting a little frustrated here folks...

 

Yes I made an error but you're also throwing in huge meta-statements of logical proof around like it's just basic algebra.

 

For the record....

 

I did my Master's in Computer Science 8 years ago, undergrad in biochem and I am a data scientist for a living - I've published papers in Academic Journals. I took a course in Complexity Theory in grad school and here is what I learned....

 

Godel's Incompleteness Theorem PROVED that there are statements which are true but unprovable.

 

And I worked through his proof as well as proofs by Turing, Chomsky, Church, Savitch, P vs. NP.

 

There are things that can not be proven - period. You can claim there is "no evidence" of anything spiritual but you are relaxing the constraints of a proof to fit your own agenda - going from logical to evidence based is highly flawed as you know.

 

I'm tired of being told by Atheists that you are oh so much more clever than anyone with a spiritual background. Smarter than Einstein? There were plenty of brilliant scientists were NOT Atheists.

 

You're clearly on the Path of Richard Dawkins who is a notorious narcissist. I read part of the "God Delusion" and could barely stand listening to him - full of logical errors.

[Mister Mister]

I don't know what spiritual OR acceptable means in this context.  I doubt that religious fundamentalism would be compatible with a free society, but as for some of the stuff you are talking about, meditation, asceticism, and so forth, I don't see how it conflicts with anarchism.  The foundation of a free society, is a culture where people can disagree without escalating violence, as long as you adhere to this, you can believe and practice something which may seem strange to everyone else, what would the problem be?

However, that said, I am a little concerned at your last post, it seems like quite a volatile reaction to the kind of skepticism that you ought to expect on this forum.

[Will Torbald]

Sorry, its been a while and I am at work. I was trying to find a simple example. There are infinitely many primes and even countably infinite (my mistake).

 

Prove the following:

 

There exists a polynomial time generator of prime numbers. In other words given any prime number P(i) it can find the next prime number P(i+1) such that the numbers of algorithmic steps is a polynomial of P

 

If you can not prove it I assume it does not exist...

 

Its the same mistake you are making

OK I am getting a little frustrated here folks...

 

Yes I made an error but you're also throwing in huge meta-statements of logical proof around like it's just basic algebra.

 

For the record....

 

I did my Master's in Computer Science 8 years ago, undergrad in biochem and I am a data scientist for a living - I've published papers in Academic Journals. I took a course in Complexity Theory in grad school and here is what I learned....

 

Godel's Incompleteness Theorem PROVED that there are statements which are true but unprovable.

 

And I worked through his proof as well as proofs by Turing, Chomsky, Church, Savitch, P vs. NP.

 

There are things that can not be proven - period. You can claim there is "no evidence" of anything spiritual but you are relaxing the constraints of a proof to fit your own agenda - going from logical to evidence based is highly flawed as you know.

 

I'm tired of being told by Atheists that you are oh so much more clever than anyone with a spiritual background. Smarter than Einstein? There were plenty of brilliant scientists were NOT Atheists.

 

You're clearly on the Path of Richard Dawkins who is a notorious narcissist. I read part of the "God Delusion" and could barely stand listening to him - full of logical errors.

 

Einstein was an atheist. When he referred to god he meant linguistically, not formally. He believed in Spinoza's god, just the harmony and order of nature, not a deity.

 

You also didn't understand my refutation and mischaracterized it as the argument from a lack of evidence. I didn't say there was no proof. I'm not interested in that discussion. I said that agnosticism is to consider the impossible to be possible. If you can't argue what is being given, please take a second to understand it before launching non sequitors.

[Jer]

Your claim that X is impossible is purely based on faith, as you offer no proof, nor logical argument, that it is impossible.  

 

If there is no proof that A is true, it does not follow that NOT A is true.  

I see you accept that faith is an unreliable epistemology. Do you have any reason besides faith to think there are gods?

[Pelafina]

I see you accept that faith is an unreliable epistemology. Do you have any reason besides faith to think there are gods?

Yes I do accept that faith is an unreliable epistemology.  I don't think there are gods.  I don't think there are no gods.  There is no proof of either.  Believing in no gods is a religion because there is no proof that gods do not exist.  They may exist because science does not understand physics fully.  They may exist in a different dimension.  They may exist in a way which our limited 5 senses cannot perceive.

[rosencrantz]

Euklid did a proof about 2500 years ago that there is an infinite number of primes.

[Jer]

Yes I do accept that faith is an unreliable epistemology.  I don't think there are gods.  I don't think there are no gods.  There is no proof of either.  Believing in no gods is a religion because there is no proof that gods do not exist.  They may exist because science does not understand physics fully.  They may exist in a different dimension.  They may exist in a way which our limited 5 senses cannot perceive.

[shirgall]

Prove to me that there are infinitely many prime numbers - since you can not and since it is impossible to prove such a thing I must therefore conclude there are not infinitely prime numbers.

 

Euclid, 300BC

 

Theorem. There are more primes than found in any finite list of primes. Proof. Call the primes in our finite list p₁, p₂, ..., p_r.  Let P be any common multiple of these primes plus one (for example, P =p₁p₂...p_r+1).  Now P is either prime or it is not.  If it is prime, then P is a prime that was not in our list.  If P is not prime, then it is divisible by some prime, call it p.  Notice p can not be any of p₁, p₂, ..., p_r, otherwise p would divide 1, which isimpossible.  So this prime p is some prime that was not in our original list.  Either way, the original list was incomplete.

[Anuojat]

Is it acceptable?

 

I think you meant rationally cosistent with logic and reality.

Also definations, Spiritual needs to be defined here.

[Pelafina]

Those are not the properties of god.  

[shirgall]

Those are not the properties of god.  

 

You ignore us when we correct your definitions, and then you claim one of Stef's definitions is incorrect you don't offer a proper one of your own? This is the reason I stop responding to you after a while.

[Pelafina]

You ignore us when we correct your definitions, and then you claim one of Stef's definitions is incorrect you don't offer a proper one of your own? This is the reason I stop responding to you after a while.

 

It's easy to disprove god if you create a strawman and give god properties that you know you can disprove.

[shirgall]

It's easy to disprove god if you create a strawman and give god properties that you know you can disprove.

 

And yet you don't offer a definition. I don't usually try to be so pedantic, but discussion can't get out of the starting blocks without some agreeable common ground.