Fate

[Thorne]

Noetic theory or noëtics (from Greek νοητικός "mental" from νοεῖν "to think" from νοῦς - noûs) is a branch of metaphysical philosophy and science concerned with the study of mind and intuition, and its relationship with the divine intellect. Among its principal purposes is to study the effects of perceptions, beliefs, and intention with respect to human consciousness.

Metaphysics is a branch of philosophy, not hard science. If they are studying whether perceptions, beliefs and intentions affect how we respond to stimuli, then yes, I think the answer is rather obvious. I'm not sure if they could determine just how these effects are produced, or in what proportions they combine to cause the effects. I would think you would need to completely map all of the synaptic passageways of the brain to even begin to predict what a person's responses would be, and even then it would only be valid for that one individual, since we are all different. General trends, perhaps, can be determined, but isn't that what philosophy and psychology are already doing?

The theory of noetics centers around the idea that the human mind is capable of affecting or even doing work to the physical world. It is suggested that thought and spirit are not in fact imaginary, but Bose or photon based, meaning essentially that the mind can be quantified by formulae which describe quantum materials such as light. This is a radical conclusion where many people think thoughts are weightless. Just as gravity affects all matter, so do thoughts to an apparent lesser degree.

Now here we seem to be delving into the arena of hard science. Maybe. Have they actually measured these photons? I'm not sure what you mean by "Bose based", unless you're referring to bosons? And if they have detected them, have they determined whether or not they are the basis of thought, or the effects of thought? What frequency of photons would the brain produce? And most importantly, what evidence is there to show that thoughts directly affect matter?

Funny when one can see science and religion come full circle without clashing isnt it.

I'm not yet sure whether or not noetics will have any bearing on scientific thought. It's certainly in its infancy and I don't know if any actual relevant data has been produced or evaluated. From what I've read so far it seems to be more akin to astrology and ESP, though, not religion. In fact, if they are able to prove what they claim I would think this would be another stroke against religious thought, rather than for it.

[leo9]

In fact, if they are able to prove what they claim I would think this would be another stroke against religious thought, rather than for it.

This is a tricky one, isn't it? If we could show the existence of God by measuring "divine influence" or "divine presence" by some kind of theometer, we'd have proved that He/She was part of the material world... and therefore not divine by most people's definition.

I'm reminded of Douglas Adam's argument that a real, incontrovertible miracle would be final proof of the non-existence of God:
"I refuse to prove I exist," says God, "because proof denies faith and without faith I am nothing."
"Ah," says Man, "but the Babel Fish is a dead giveaway. It proves you exist, therefore you don't. QED."
"Oh, I hadn't thought of that," says God, and vanishes in a puff of logic.
"Oh, that was easy," says Man, and for an encore proves that black is white and is run over on a zebra crossing.
(The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy)

But seriously, it's hard to think of any manifestation that wouldn't reduce the divinity to a science-fiction super-being on the lines of Galactus. I guess that's why I'm happier to know my Goddess in my heart, but not expect Her to leave footprints in the material world.

[Thorne]

I guess that's why I'm happier to know my Goddess in my heart, but not expect Her to leave footprints in the material world.

So once again it's a matter of faith. You cannot prove she exists, while I cannot prove that she doesn't.

But if she doesn't "leave footprints in the material world" how can you know what she wants? Does she speak to you? Is it just an urge, or a feeling? How can you differentiate, as my sig implies, between her voice and your own insanity? And if indeed she does not interact with our world, why should anyone worship her? Even more importantly, if she is a supernatural being, why should she need or even desire our worship?

These are the questions which have led me to abandon faith as a hopeless exercise in futility. If the gods don't show themselves, then they either do not exist or have given me no reason to worship them if they do. Certainly, relying on the maundering of ancient "prophets" who can't even get their stories straight does not give me any such reason.

Paraphrasing some much more intelligent people than myself:

We are all atheists. I just believe in one less god(dess) than you.

When you can explain why you don't worship any of the thousands of gods which have plagued humanity, then you will understand why I don't worship yours.

[leo9]

So once again it's a matter of faith.

You say that like it's a bad thing.

But if she doesn't "leave footprints in the material world" how can you know what she wants? Does she speak to you? Is it just an urge, or a feeling? How can you differentiate, as my sig implies, between her voice and your own insanity?

How can you differentiate between your rational materialism and your own insanity? None of us can prove by self-analysis that we're not crazy or deluded: unlike Voyager's computerised Doctor, we don't have self-diagnostic subroutines to call on. We get by, most of the time, by a combination of concensus (if a reasonable number of people seem to agree with me, it's not just in my head) and pragmatism (if my ideas don't put me dangerously at odds with the world, they can't be that irrational). In Robert Anton Wilson's immortal words, only the madman is absolutely sure.

And if indeed she does not interact with our world, why should anyone worship her? Even more importantly, if she is a supernatural being, why should she need or even desire our worship?

Like most modern Pagans, I don't see my gods as being so weak or egomaniac that they actually want people to spend hours chanting about how wonderful they are. But... have you ever been stunned by something so vast and so beautiful that you could only stare in awe? That is worship, and it's not something you put on in order to beg for helpful miracles: it's something you can't help but feel.

Hey, I don't waste my time on small delusions.

These are the questions which have led me to abandon faith as a hopeless exercise in futility. If the gods don't show themselves, then they either do not exist or have given me no reason to worship them if they do.

Absolutely reasonable, and I can't fault you. That works for you, so it's right for you.

I was right where you are once, apart from a nagging feeling that there ought to be more to it than that. I spent a while calling myself a Buddhist, which means an atheist with spiritual yearnings. But the things I heard from neo-Pagans gave me that feeling which another religious writer has described as "wishing that it might be so". I studied, here and there (this was before the days when every bookshop had a shelf on the subject), and attended rituals in the spirit of trying to see if it would work for me. I saw a cartoon, once, of an intellectual-looking character kneeling in prayer saying "Testing... Testing..." That was me.

And then I got an answer, and the world would never be the same. But I am perfectly well aware that, like the ghost that terrorised everyone who visited a house I stayed in once, it could all be explained away as subjective and unproveable.

The behaviourist pioneer Skinner, in his later years, decided that the conditioned reflex was the only mechanism needed to explain all human behaviour. Therefore, the conscious mind did not exist: all behaviour was a product of reflexes, and if you claimed to be conscious, that was your conditioned reflexes speaking as they had been conditioned to do. And the wonderful thing about this theory is, nobody could prove him wrong: your conscious mind only exists for you, you can't show it to anyone else. We all know he was wrong, but we can't prove it except by agreeing between ourselves that we know it to be true.

Paraphrasing some much more intelligent people than myself:

We are all atheists. I just believe in one less god(dess) than you.

You're quite intelligent enough to see that that's a contradiction. To paraphrase: all our glasses are empty, your empty glass just has more in it than mine.

When you can explain why you don't worship any of the thousands of gods which have plagued humanity, then you will understand why I don't worship yours.

I can and I do. I don't worship any of the others because my Lady is the one who appealed to me when I was studying the subject: so I reached out and found Her (or created Her in my head, if you wish). None of them appeal to you, so you've neither made the effort to find them, nor been seized by one against your will (as happens to some). That's fine: I'm glad it works for you. I have no intention of spoiling it by preaching how much happier you would be with a religion, because, apart from anything else, you might well not be. The mahamantra of eclectic Paganism is "Whatever works," and that includes atheism.

[Thorne]

You say that like it's a bad thing.

Faith can be a bad thing, when you let it control your life. Faith says, "This is how things are, and the gods are the cause." Reason says, "This is how things are, so let's figure out why."

We get by, most of the time, by a combination of concensus (if a reasonable number of people seem to agree with me, it's not just in my head) and pragmatism (if my ideas don't put me dangerously at odds with the world, they can't be that irrational).

This is another danger of faith. How many religions are there in the world? How many different belief systems? They generally all have a "reasonable number of people" who agree with those belief systems. Yet obviously, they can't all be right! So which faith is the 'One True Faith'?

In Robert Anton Wilson's immortal words, only the madman is absolutely sure.

If there's one thing I know it's that we cannot be absolutely sure of anything.

But... have you ever been stunned by something so vast and so beautiful that you could only stare in awe? That is worship, and it's not something you put on in order to beg for helpful miracles: it's something you can't help but feel.

Oh, yes, I've felt awe. Images from the Hubble, Armstrong on the Moon, the births of my children. All were awe inspiring, yet I never once felt any sense of a supernatural presence, or a feeling of worship.

I was right where you are once, apart from a nagging feeling that there ought to be more to it than that.

I can understand that feeling. I've felt it myself. No one wants to believe that this is all there is to their life. But making up some comfortable bedtime story, or buying into someone else's story, doesn't change the reality around you. It only makes you feel better, at best. For the worst, one need only look around at the horrors being inflicted on people around the world in the name of one religion or another.

To paraphrase: all our glasses are empty, your empty glass just has more in it than mine.

No, I see it more like your glass having one drop of god-juice left in it, while mine has all been discarded.

I can and I do. I don't worship any of the others because my Lady is the one who appealed to me when I was studying the subject: so I reached out and found Her (or created Her in my head, if you wish). None of them appeal to you, so you've neither made the effort to find them, nor been seized by one against your will (as happens to some). That's fine: I'm glad it works for you. I have no intention of spoiling it by preaching how much happier you would be with a religion, because, apart from anything else, you might well not be. The mahamantra of eclectic Paganism is "Whatever works," and that includes atheism.

I'm glad to see that you have at least thought about your faith, why you follow your Goddess. For this I give you credit. You are far better off than those who follow their faith simply because it's all they know, the faith they were born into, the beliefs they have had drummed into their minds.

I, too, struggled for a long time with my lack of faith. While I had no interest in the social activities of a formal religion, I somehow still felt it was wrong of me to just toss everything aside. But then I started to really learn about what I had been taught, and I saw how unconvincing and ultimately unsatisfying it all was. And I finally realized that there was nothing for me to believe in, nothing for me to fear, no reason for me to feel empty. There are no gods. We are here by virtue of a series of cosmic accidents. And we help each other along not because some imaginary being tells us to, but because it's the right thing to do. This understanding was liberating.

[leo9]

Faith can be a bad thing, when you let it control your life. Faith says, "This is how things are, and the gods are the cause." Reason says, "This is how things are, so let's figure out why."

Your definition is too limited. Faith is belief without proof. That can be faith in a god or gods, or in science (the belief that science can explain everything is a faith, because it's inherently unproveable,) or in a Cause. In his campaigns for atheism Richard Dawkins is as much a faith-driven man as any preacher.

And absolute faith is a very dangerous thing, but not only religious faith. Some of the worst atrocities have been committed by people with no faith in religion, but absolute faith in a Cause. (It's arguable that this also goes for most of the current crop of terrorists, but let that pass as too tricky.) In my youth this country was terrorised by people driven by faith in the reunification of Ireland. They identified as Catholic, but it wasn't about religious faith: even the Pope couldn't tell them to stop. (What finally stopped them - not all of them, alas - was political negotiation, but that's another topic. )

This is another danger of faith. How many religions are there in the world? How many different belief systems? They generally all have a "reasonable number of people" who agree with those belief systems. Yet obviously, they can't all be right! So which faith is the 'One True Faith'?

Not mine, for sure At most, I'd like to believe it's "one of the true faiths," but the list I'd include is so long that that's not saying much.

The concept of "one true faith" is one of the most toxic products of the Mosaic paradigm. Polytheists, historically, have never persecuted anyone for worshipping the wrong god, though they may insist that you also make offerings to theirs. They might tell a conquered people "Your Goddess is our God's bitch!" but they wouldn't burn you at the stake for denying it. Only the Jews objected to having an image of Caesar added to their temple. When the first missionaries came to Scandinavia, a lot of people were happy to add the Whitechrist to the list of gods they prayed to: it was only when they discovered they weren't to be allowed to sacrifice to the Aesir that the trouble started.

Oh, yes, I've felt awe. Images from the Hubble, Armstrong on the Moon, the births of my children. All were awe inspiring, yet I never once felt any sense of a supernatural presence, or a feeling of worship.

Your loss.

I can understand that feeling. I've felt it myself. No one wants to believe that this is all there is to their life. But making up some comfortable bedtime story, or buying into someone else's story, doesn't change the reality around you. It only makes you feel better, at best.

That "at best" is a lot. And it's a very philosophical argument whether making you see the world in a completely new way is a "real" change. Historically, most of the great changes in societies have begun with a change of belief - people buying into someone else's story. We're only here, in a liberal democratic capitalist society with a high level of technology, because people chose to believe stories that moved them that way. The proof is that people who choose to believe other things have not made that change, and actively prefer the feudal primitive societies that fit their beliefs, and we can't make them change at the point of a gun.

For the worst, one need only look around at the horrors being inflicted on people around the world in the name of one religion or another.

Or in the name of one political system or another. The dangers of fanaticism and the dangers of religion are two different things that only partly overlap.

No, I see it more like your glass having one drop of god-juice left in it, while mine has all been discarded.

But even one drop means you can't call my glass empty, and you can't call me an atheist without bending the word till it breaks. Your arguments are usually so reasonable and well thought out that it annoys me when you talk nonsense.

I, too, struggled for a long time with my lack of faith. While I had no interest in the social activities of a formal religion, I somehow still felt it was wrong of me to just toss everything aside. But then I started to really learn about what I had been taught, and I saw how unconvincing and ultimately unsatisfying it all was. And I finally realized that there was nothing for me to believe in, nothing for me to fear, no reason for me to feel empty. There are no gods. We are here by virtue of a series of cosmic accidents. And we help each other along not because some imaginary being tells us to, but because it's the right thing to do. This understanding was liberating.

I'm glad you are happy in your faith.

[Thorne]

Your definition is too limited. Faith is belief without proof. That can be faith in a god or gods, or in science (the belief that science can explain everything is a faith, because it's inherently unproveable,) or in a Cause. In his campaigns for atheism Richard Dawkins is as much a faith-driven man as any preacher.

Neither I nor Richard Dawkins ever claimed that science can explain everything. We know that it cannot. Science determines the most likely explanations for the things it studies, based upon observation and data. No faith is necessary. Gravity is a great example. We all know that gravity sucks. Why? Haven't a clue! Observation and experimentation tells us it's so, and Newton tells us how much. But (unless there have been changes in our knowledge) no one has yet been able to explain HOW gravity works.

And absolute faith is a very dangerous thing, but not only religious faith. Some of the worst atrocities have been committed by people with no faith in religion, but absolute faith in a Cause.

Absolutely!

Your loss.

Your opinion.

That "at best" is a lot.

Again, your opinion. For my part, I find it makes me much more comfortable knowing that earthquakes are caused by shifting tectonic plates and not by the whim of some angry god. Doesn't make me any safer, of course. Unless I decide not to live near the edges of those plates. Where does one go to avoid an angry god?

The proof is that people who choose to believe other things have not made that change, and actively prefer the feudal primitive societies that fit their beliefs, and we can't make them change at the point of a gun.

No, we cannot. The only way to get people to change is through education. The Soviet Union proved that. Nominally atheistic, they suppressed all religions, usually violently. Yet when they finally collapsed, the religions popped back out from hiding. The only reason for us to have a gun is to keep the fanatics from trying to force us to change at the points of their guns.

Or in the name of one political system or another. The dangers of fanaticism and the dangers of religion are two different things that only partly overlap.

The difference is that most religions, to one extent or another, proclaim themselves to be the arbiters of goodness and morality. "Thou shalt not kill!" Unless its a filthy heathen who believes in false gods. "Thou shalt not bear false witness!" Except to make those atheist 'evil'-utionists look bad.

Your arguments are usually so reasonable and well thought out that it annoys me when you talk nonsense.

Semantics. So the word 'atheism' may not be absolutely correct in this context. That doesn't negate the idea, though. If you can deny the existence of any gods, how does that make you so much different from someone who denies the existence of ALL gods?

I'm glad you are happy in your faith.

I am happy without faith.