Are There Multiple Paths To God?

Makes sense to me that's why I came to the conclusion on the first page already that there can be as many paths to God as there are people

 

There are many traditions---religious and spiritual---that allow for multiple paths to God, even paths that may seem contradictory to their own. Indigenous people the world over find it very strange to think that there would be only one way to connect with, or to honor, the divine. (That is until the Christian missionaries indocrtinate them, and convince them that all other ways, especially that of their fellow men and their ancestors, are evil).

 

Mr. Writer, you made a valid point:

And then this too isn't bad:

Of course these are things we cannot know. Which means that either side one takes on such issues is just as valid, from an existential standpoint, as the other side. Which also means that there is nothing wrong with speculating about such things in so far as we don't force our own beliefs upon others.

For example, it is a fallacy of logic to say that there is no proof that God exists, therefore he does not exist. It is also a fallacy to say, there is no proof that god does not exist therefore he does exist.

SO then you add:

In other words, you are saying that you believe that there is no God, which is just as valid as Asmo saying that he '...praises God because...' Except that you are implying there is only one path, and that path is that there is no god. This is different from the multiple possibilities that your first posts allowed for.

The one thing that is certain, whether you are religious, spiritual, agnostic, or atheist, is that humans have a universal need to come to terms with the universe and their relation to it, and within it. This understanding is very subjective. Your understanding is no more valid than anyone elses.

I say this because I have experienced what is for me, proof of a higher being, and it has provided me with an understanding that is undoubtedly fairly different from that of most others who have responded to this thread. But it is very subjective and meant for me. Only I can know how valid and representative of truth it actually is. It may be very real to me, but I also have to acknowledge that it is no better than anyone elses-------because, there is, after all, multiple paths to the divine, even that of atheism.

 

I believe that there if there is something out there that is greater than us, it doesn't care what we call it. I do believe there is something- a great nebulous source of all things and I am grateful to it for my life on this planet and the sentience I enjoy. I'm an eclectic pagan, because I like the idea of polytheism. It helps me connect with it better. I have my own pantheon made up of gods and goddesses that speak to me (not literally of course), and I write letters to angels to help focus my intention and desires. I do have some of the humility leftover from being raised Christian, so I do worship the deities as higher powers and believe they deserve my respect and reverence. This is the best way I have found to feel connected with the divine and I do hope it pleases whatever higher power there may be. So I guess this is a long way of saying I hope so?

 

You make it sound as if the two sides are exactly balanced with the same amount of evidence for both propositions. In fact there is no evidence for the existence of a deity which interacts with our world. None. Not a single iota of evidence has ever been presented in the history of mankind, in all the religions, sects, and cults ever offered. You may quibble with this and say "then how do you explain people who take the bible or quran as evidence of christianity or islam", but you're only pointing to people who don't understand how evidence and critical thinking works. I can also point to people who believe that because they had a dream in which god told them that they are Jesus Christ, that they now believe that they are Jesus Christ. Some of these people might have schizophrenia. Others might have lesser known forms of delusions. Still others would simply lack the cognitive tools to make distinctions between good claims and bad claims, good evidence and bad evidence.

We cannot know whether or not there is a teacup orbiting Saturn; surely you do not live your life in such a way that you would wager 50% that there is in fact such a teapot? How about a diamond the size of a fridge buried in my backyard? I mean, who knows, it could be there right? Certainly I can make the claim that it is, and until we actually go and check, we won't know. Therefore there is a 50% chance that the world's biggest diamond is in my backyard, because I like saying so because that's what my parents taught me and that's what makes me feel good and gives meaning to my life?

This is a common line I hear in these debates; once the actual truth of a particular claim has gone under sufficient fire, those who are pro-faith will drop trying to argue the veracity of their claims, and instead appeal to a moral sense of obligation in allowing others to make these claims unimpeded. I have two problems with this. One, that line of "not forcing" has been crossed far too many times in the past for me to be comfortable with people holding unjustified and unjustifiable claims in supernatural entities and events. History is pockmarked with the liberties taken upon our ancestors lives and freedoms by not being openly critical of faith based thinking. Two, beliefs matter even if they are not being forced upon us. Imagine that tomorrow you meet your best friend in the street, and he tells you excitedly that this morning, his waffles transformed into the body of Elvis Presley, and he was filled with the Holy Ghost of Elvis, and it told him to sell all his belongings, buy 10 guitars, and travel the world singing the music of elvis. Now, I don't know what kind of friend you are, but I would be very worried. It wouldn't matter that he wasn't trying to proselytize his new Elvis faith. It wouldn't matter that he wasn't hurting another soul, that he was acquiring a tremendous source of meaning and love in his life. The fact is that he is entertaining propositions for which he has no evidence, and which should be at the very least extremely suspect if not immediately discarded pending further and better evidence.

The second statement is definitely fallacious. The first statement, not so much. I do not think there is a god in the exact same capacity that I do not think there is a teacup orbiting Saturn. Can I prove there isn't? Probably not. Is there one? Probably not. Can I save on keystrokes and words by not constantly repeating "probably not"? Yes.

There is no evidence for a teacup orbiting Saturn, therefore there is probably not a teacup orbiting Saturn.

There is no evidence for a theistic deity, therefore there is probably not a theistic deity.

Do you think it's a fallacy to say, "there is no proof for the existence of leprechauns, therefore there are no leprechauns". If you are being extremely rigorous with your language in a formal, mathematical way, then that statement does overextend itself; but in the real world, this is how people talk.

I want to be ridiculously explicit and loud about this following point:

I am completely open to evidence for the existence of God, and if such evidence we presented to me, and were compelling, I would immediately take it as evidence that there is a God.

I am not dogmatically rigid. I do not "believe" there is no god. I simply have yet to see any shred of acceptable evidence. When and If I do, I would take that evidence into consideration the same as with any other issue in life.

I do not "believe" that there is no god; there is no evidence for god. I also don't "believe" that I am not wanted for murder in France, there is simply no evidence that that is the case.

I want to get away from this "path" terminology, because it is used in the sense of "paths to god", a particularly noxious phrase which I detest, because it ignores the reality of religions as fundamentally exclusive paths to god. I do not think there is one path, because I do not think we are going anywhere. There is however, a proper way to weigh evidence and use reason, and using it properly does not make one conclude that there is a supernatural entity which created the universe and [insert X, Y, Z particular religious claims].

Do you think that literally every single person's understanding of reality is as valid as every other person?

Do you think it is possible for someone to misunderstand or misrepresent reality in some way? You must, because we know these people well, they are called "delusional". So if we allow that it is possible to be pathologically incapable of properly representing reality, then we allow that there are better and worse ways of doing so.

For example, a representation of reality which claims that we are all hallucinations in my head and that in order to gain immortality I must murder you all, is probably a less than ideal interpretation of reality for you. If you grant that (if you don't, this conversation cannot continue with that level of insincerity), then you understand intrinsically that there is a way to measure how well somebody is modelling reality.

You did not pick your own model out of a hat. You did not flip a coin. There's a reason you're not joining ISIS tomorrow. There's a reason you're not praying to Poseidon today. You used your wits and you determined a particular system to use based on its efficacy for criteria which you submitted.

So you already know that there are better or worse ways of doing this, which is not surprising. A bicycle is a part of reality, and there are better and worse ways to model a bicycle in our heads. Simply add the rest of reality to the picture, and we can continue discussing the merits of various models.

Many are woefully inadequate and dangerous, and do not deserve dignity or continuation.

If you think atheism is a path to the divine, you don't understand what atheism is.

Can you imagine if you were at the grocery store, and you were about to pick up an apple which looked really good, and a store clerk waved you over, and handed you a different apple, saying "This apple will be better for you. I say this because I have experienced what is for me, proof that this apple is better, and it has provided me with an understanding that is undoubtedly fairly different from that of most others who have shopped at this produce isle. But it is very subjective and meant for me. Only I can know how valid and representative of truth it actually is. It may be very real to me, but I also have to acknowledge that it is no better than anyone elses-------because, there is, after all, multiple paths to a good apple, even that of abstaining from apples.

 

Seeking in a word. If "path" mean route to find.'

Yes there is only one, only the seeking.

 

There is only one path... The one you're on.

 

Is the path compelling ? Oh , heart in my feets .

 

Well----I did say higher being, didn't I. I think our individuality is very important, and that it is multidimensional, at a deeper level it is all god.

But what I was really speaking towards is not so much an argument of idealism vs. materialism, or religion/spirituality vs atheism. What I was really speaking against was the dogmatic reductionism. To see what I mean, you could reread my post and wherever it says, "...no god..." something like cosmic consciousness or whatever you feel is appropriate.

Though based on his latest response I think I correctly assessed what he was saying the first time.

 

Mr.Writer, If only you would accept Jesus Christ into your heart…

(I’m joking! I’m joking!!! And I apologize in advance to any Christians I offended by using that as a joke----I just couldn’t help myself…)

Both statements are fallacious. They are informal fallacies that we label as, argumentum ad ignoratium, or ‘argument from ignorance.’ If we define a teacup as an object solely made by mankind, then I am fairly certain that we could argue against a teacup orbiting Saturn without falling into the fallacy.

Coincidentally, to assume that anyone experiencing a spiritual experience is undergoing a psychotic episode or is delusional is to make the folly of a sick-sick fallacy. No I did not make that up—it is a real fallacy. You can look it up.

Yes, it is true, there are plenty of schizophrenics who believe they are Jesus, or that God gave them a special message, or that a dog told them to kill people. But they are hardly representative of most religious people. To the next point, like yourself, religion has never provided a proof of God for me. Has religion failed to provide proof through all of history, and/or to everyone that has followed a religion? I would say that such a thing is very reductionist, not to mention presumptuous on your part, so I would disagree.

But----certainly the implication that religion represents many, many people blindly following a dogmatic institution of power and control, which thereby stunts their ability to become genuine individuals (to borrow from Soren Kiekegaard), yes, I would certainly agree with that. But I am sure that within the many, many people there may be those who have found something genuine.

A diamond in your backyard is a physical thing that you can prove empirically. We have no way of proving a nonmaterial existent. We cannot even prove the existence of mind. We can prove the phenomena of mind because it does interact in an electrochemical fashion with the organic structure of the brain, but mind is still a non-material thing which we cannot truly put a finger on. Is an artificially intelligent computer program really conscious, or does true consciousness only exist in a living organism?---these are things that science cannot truly answer.

There again, in the Elvis case, you are speaking from a sick-sick fallacy. But I understand your concerns. Though I would more likely expect that your Elvis friend is getting big money from his disciples and followers and uses his position to bed as many young pretty women as he can----in a sacred sexual union that only the holy spirit of Elvis, through his humble, but chosen, body can provide----in which case, he probably is not delusional at all, but does suffer from a malevolent need for control over others, and what we would like to call an unhealthy level of greed (even if some of us feel a bit jealous over all the money, and tail, and power…)

Yes, religion has done horrible things throughout history, and still does today. For example, I would love to see an international law making it illegal for missionaries to proselytize indigenous people. But religions are institutions, born with most other institutions in the early city states of our planter-culture ancestors. (Before that, there was only spirituality.) And those people that are most aggressive about their own religion are those who subconsciously deal with their own lack of belief-----they just don’t realize it. I could go on for pages about the problems of religion.

Then there is the problem of the religious right, and the dangerous power they have over this country. There are lots of problems---but I still stand by my statement. The little old lady at the grocery store who realizes that I am not a Christian and says that she will pray for me----is not a threat to me. She is an irritant, but I am a hippie, and I would let her be----she’s got her trip and I got mine. (Besides, she might really be the one with the belief issues---as I stated in my previous paragraph.)

Religion is not god. But it does provide a connection to god, for those who need it, and it is neither your place nor my place to determine that at least some of those find enough subjective proof for them to make their membership worthwhile.

Yes, if we say there is only one path to god, or we try to rank paths to god, then you are right. To state that unconditionally, there are many paths to god (and there are religions that acknowledge that), then it means just that---that there is no single exclusive path to god. Granted religions are grounded in the in-group out-group mentality that was the dominant theme of the planter-culture zeitgeist, so there is a tendency for a religion to represent the in-group and therefore fit the definition that they deem themselves as the fundamentally exclusive path to god. Hinduism, to an extent, allows for multiple paths to god (yet does maintain the in-group by simply absorbing other beliefs-----Jesus, for example, is also a Hindu deity, and therefore provides one of the paths). Shintoism does not hold itself as an exclusive path to god, though it would be traditionally arguable whether a non-Japanese could truly fit into that particular path. Taoism is not exclusive. There are other examples.

The tendency for a spirituality however, is not to see itself as exclusive. Indigenous belief systems the world over, in particular, never even question whether there could be only one way---because they hold everything sacred, and how could one path therefore lead man out of the sacred, or to a point where it is less sacred.

If you re-read my post---or just what you quoted here, you will see that I never said atheism was a path to the divine. What I did say is that there is a universal need to come to terms with the universe and one’s relation to it and within it. Atheism is a belief system which does that----unless it is just blindly accepted, in which case it is someone else’s atheistic belief system that does just that.

Of course, a dangerous person who is killing people because of the voices in his head must be stopped. But we live in an age of relativism. We live in a period where objectivism has far too much control. We can measure how well someone is modeling reality, but whose standard do we base it on? Nazi Germany modeled a view of reality based on eugenics and a twisted understanding of both Nietzsche and a Germanic paganism. The vast majority of Germany went along with that with very little question. In America today, very few people question the Patriot Act, and hardly care that much of their private communications are monitored and held by the NSA, as recently demonstrated in a news program that makes its point with satire, and that is until the surveyed Americans found out that the NSA also holds their dick-pix, and nude selfies, and has even shared some of them; In our country, a corporation is a legal person; In some parts of our country creationism is science, and there are too many states where it is illegal to feed the homeless; In Indiana a law just passed which protected discrimination, and was changed, not by a moral awakening, but by corporate money. Whose standards should we use? Should we determine that a model of reality that is grounded in a belief in god should be treated with medication and electro-shock therapy? (We did this with the Native Americans who followed their traditional ways---especially the Medicine Men---as recently (officially) as into the 1940’s.)

Once again you are falling into the sick-sick fallacy here—which basically means that what is healthy and psychologically sound for you must be the same for everyone else. If someone experiences angels or some other supernatural occurrence, then to you they are experiencing a hallucination or some other form of delusion, therefore that is what is happening.

But here is the problem—spiritual experiences, and for that matter, spiritual proofs, are experienced solely on a subjective level. This is exactly like mind---we can only experience mind on a subjective level.

Let’s return to the example of your make-believe friend that has suddenly found an Elvis God. Assuming that he really isn’t just trying to make a fast buck off of his followers and fooling chicks into the sack---if he really wasn’t hurting anyone, then how would we know what is going on? For one thing, Mental illness does not occur in single solitary episodes, even if they are all-encompassing. If he truly was experiencing a mental breakdown, there are other signs that will determine exactly what he is suffering from. Not to mention that there would possibly be a history of mental illness, or mental illness in his family.

I certainly haven’t done anything destructive in my life, I haven’t sold off all my belongings. But there are Christian members of my family who tell me that I am being tricked by Satan, or that I am committing idolatry, or that my life would be so much better if I would read the Bible (never mind the fact that I know the Bible much better than they do from an analytical perspective, even if they know it better from a religious perspective. I am certain that there are non-religious friends who think I have gone of my rocker----more than once---I have gone up to the mountains and sat on a hill without food or water for 4 days (and Medical science states that if I see visions it is because I am exposed to the elements for 4 days without food or water and therefore hallucinating. The problem is I never hallucinated…) I don’t talk a whole lot about the things that I see and experience on a regular basis, except for those of the Native community that are involved in these same ceremonies ----because people would not believe me, and they would probably think I am crazy----much like your example.

Did I find a better way to worship? Yes I did----for me that is. I would not expect that it would be the best way for other people. I would think that there are many different spiritual truths that they might relate to much better. The same stories are told over and over with different actors and different cultural motifs.

In fact, my friends always laugh when I show up to a sweat lodge and see other white people. I always tell my friends---“What are they doing here?! These are my Indians!! They should go find their own!” We laugh and it’s all a joke, but there is a part of me that is not laughing. I guess there is a fear that they might take away from the specialness of the ceremonies… Anyway---there are many ways to approach the divine just as there are many cultures. It’s like you wrote:

I’ve got one more thing to respond to----I’ll put that in a second post.

 

To get to the best heaven with the best virgins,

You have to fly a plane there.

 

That joke is not funny or witty.

 

As a joke it fails I agree.

But on a more serious note I think those guys who flew the planes thought they were on their path to God. Or maybe not - but if not why the eagerness to commit suicide?

 

Maybe they had a shitty life and were convinced to sacrifice it for a higher purpose (strike fear in the hearts of what they think is their ultimate enemy)

 

They were all upper and middle class engineers and architects. German intelligence had their apartment bugged for months before they carried out their attacks. All these guys talked about was how perfect the Quran is, how much they wanted to go to paradise, how evil the forces of satan are, and how glorious their attack upon the enemies of God would be.

Relaxxx is not making a joke, but it is clever, even if it puts a bad taste in your mouth. He's pointing out that if we all sit around circle jerking each other about how wonderful and special our subjective beliefs about reality are, and we never take them seriously enough to even place them upon the same standing as any other kind of idea offered in the cognitive market (political, scientific, aesthetic, spiritual), then we are going to live in a world where we consciously make ourselves dumber and dumber and more and more exposed to the heinous plots of those who also have special and subjective views of life and spirituality which involve our deaths. What do we say to them? We will have already neutered our ability to have any kind of critique, if "Every religion is subjective and special and there are many paths to god".

 

Very likely.

Also the victims of ideologues who no doubt twist their religious beliefs to their political agenda. The fact that it's possible to do that makes me seriously question the religion that can be so interpreted.

 

Sounds shitty to me. It probably wasn't awesome before that either.

Also: maybe that joke/remark was witty or clever in 2002 or something but it got old and cliche years ago

 

How dare you criticize someone else's religious beliefs? There are as many paths to god as there are people. Don't bring your atheist dogma and condescension into this By the way they were extremely happy to be of service to Islam. They believed that not only were they guaranteed the best spots in paradise, but that they were earning signed letters of acceptance for their families into the bosom of God. They were pious men, happy and fulfilled in their religious beliefs, with great faith in their worldview.

There's nothing cliche about the inherent absurdity of grown adults believing in supernatural myths which they base their lives around, even to the point of heinous acts like murder. This is exactly the problem with faith. There is no reality check. There are only invisible entities speaking in secret voices inside the heads of lonely and vulnerable people. This is where faith based thinking gets us. There's nothing cliche about continuing to point out that the greatest attack on US soil in all time was exactly because of religion. What's more shocking is how dismissive you are of this prime example of what you are defending.

 

Yeah it is extremely unreasonable that ideologies and religions can be interpreted and acted upon in multiple ways Surely it has got to be solely the religion that needs to be questioned when a couple of the millions of peaceful followers appear to be extremist killers.