Traces of the soul

Throughout history all civilizations had some sort of belief system. A belief system is a series of assumed realities that are not seen by the common eye or deduced by pure logic. The common eye will show a person that the sky is blue. Pure logic will determine that one plus one equals two. Then there are beliefs; A belief is a “conviction of the truth of something… based on a consideration or examination of the evidence” . Every belief has a different level of intensity.

A belief does not need to be as illogical as the Tooth Fairy or Santa clause. A belief can be as simple as not walking down a dangerous street due to fear of being harmed. While the belief may be based on numerous crime reports which are considered reliable, perhaps the reports are false.

Some parents enjoy misleading their children regarding superstitions. Being that children’s ability to verify reality is relatively undeveloped they are likely to be deceived. They often consider their parent’s fallacies to be absolute reality. As people mature they develop methods of determining whether information is true or false. As people develop their senses they become more likely to embrace the truth and discard fallacies.

No matter how advanced people become in approaching information they can’t always be sure about everything. Sometimes people need to trust others.

A belief doesn’t need to be based on information provided by other people. A belief can develop from observing patterns in nature. Farmers invest seed to sowing their field since they believe it will produce much more then they put in. The belief is based on the fact that farmers in the past were successful in yielding profit using this tactic. There is a possibility that a drought will prevent growth or, a storm will destroy the seed and cause the farmer a great loss. Being that this doesn’t usually happen the farmer sincerely believes that it will not happen that time. If a person would only accept what is absolutely proven they could not survive a day. Perhaps all food is poisoned?

It is not only crucial to distinguish between absolute knowledge and beliefs it is also necessary to determine the strength of each belief. There are three general categories of beliefs; "justified true belief" that people consider reality, “confidence in the truth or existence of something not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof” and then there are “opinion; conviction” which people know have a significant chance of being false.

An example of a weak belief is when a person has faith that their favorite sports team will win the championships. No matter how confident a person is in their team they recognize the possibility that they may be defeated. People are willing to take risks based on such beliefs like betting money. However, there is a limit to what people are willing to jeopardize. This is because no matter how strong their faith is, they fear the possibility being wrong.

On the other hand, some people are so confident in their belief that they risk their lives to prove it. Unfortunately some people are wrong. An example of this is the numerous dare devils that lost their lives attempting stunts. Prior to performing their fateful stunt they were confident in their ability to achieve success. The possibility of failure seemed extremely unlikely.

Some beliefs are based on limited evidence but others are completely generated by the human brain. Artificially produced beliefs are formed by the imagination without any tangible proof. Based on my observation, all beliefs to fit into two general categories, theory and imagination.

When people desire knowledge in a certain field they search for a method of verifying the facts. If they can’t find reasonable evidence they begin to speculate. A theory is the “conjectural view or idea” that people think is the most likely to be true. If people fail to come across a reasonable theory they begin to use their imagination.

Sometimes people use their imagination to create abstract ideas that they know are false, often for entertainment purposes. However, imagination can also be the basis of ideas that people accept as total reality. Some mind generated beliefs are considered part of a religion others are considered rational thinking even when they are not.

An example of a mind generated belief which people considered rational was the Hoverboard belief. In 1989 a movie was released called “Back to the Future Part II”. In the film the “future” scientist invented an anti-gravity device that allowed a skateboard to float a few inches above the ground. The fictional technology was a magnetic force that automatically repelled off the ground. The gadget did not seem to exert energy when lifting its load; it would passively defy the pull of gravity.

The Hoverboard idea was created by the imagination of the film writer. Nevertheless many people actually believed that such a device was invented . I would suggest that people accepted this belief because at the time there were many innovational breakthroughs. This caused people to wonder, what will be invented next? The Hoverboard seemed like a reasonable suggestion.

Was there rational basis for the Hoverboard belief?

As I observed advancing technology I noticed how gadgets became smaller and smaller. The original mobile phone was the size of a brick. Currently most mobile phones are able to fit in a shirt pocket with room to spare. The same is true about other type of electronic equipment. Years ago I predicted that there would be a single device which would encompass all personal electronics. There are now devices on the market which include a phone, music player, media player, video games, camera and a personal computer. My prediction clearly transpired. There is however a major difference between my prediction and the Hoverboard belief.

My prediction regarded the enhancement of current technology and did not require any original discoveries. Anti-gravity would require a discovery equally original to the invention of electricity. All current technology requires exhausting energy in proportion with weight to lift an object into the air. The fictional technology of the Hoverboard did not seem to need power, it would “naturally” repel from the ground. There is no recording of technology that slightly resembles such capabilities.

It is logical to assume that existing technology would advance because it always has. However predicting an entirely new invention is a complete guess unless one believes they are psychic. In my opinion anti-gravity is just as likely to be invented as time travel. Both would require discoveries beyond everything known to man.

It is my firm understanding that the Hoverboard belief has no logical basis. It was generated entirely by human imagination, yet there were people who considered it true.

There remain ideas which were generated solely by human imagination and are accepted by some as absolute reality. Like the beliefs of the past, these ideas have those who accept them and those who reject them. Unfortunately after centuries of advancing science we are still unable verify everything. Even if someone is willing to risk their life to prove their belief there isn’t always a method of confirming the facts. If there was a technique that required someone to risk their life to verify the truth behind commonly disputed ideas there would be volunteers.
There is one debate that has been going on since the beginning of history. Every sane individual who walked the earth grappled with this issue at sometime in their life. There are two general sides to the debate and each one has an infinite amount of subdivisions. There is naturalism and supernaturalism .

For thousands of years there were atheists who believed that there is a fixed mechanism to nature. Not every naturalist has the same beliefs. In my opinion every naturalist believes in some or all of the following;

a) The rules of nature govern the movement of time, matter and energy. The patterns of nature are responsible for creating everything. No being can override the rules of nature. Perhaps there is a lot about nature that people don’t know but it always was and will continue to be forever. As humans explore nature they discover more efficient methods of using nature for their own benefit.

b) To be self conscious a being must have certain physical dimensions. There is no self acknowledging being that doesn’t have a body like mechanism. Suggesting that a bodiless being exists is ridiculous.

c) Constructing and positioning the globe or creating the multitude of organisms that occupy it requires technology beyond what humans can imagine. No creature within range of human sight has intellectual capabilities exponentially greater than humans. This observation remained consistent even after the invention of telescopes that enhanced people’s seeing capabilities. One must therefore conclude that our world and its inhabitance were not created by a self sensing existence.

d) Since humans have the greatest intellectual abilities, we are superior to everything. Therefore, all rational decisions must be a product of the human mind. Choosing to follow an idea that is not utterly based on logic is counterproductive to the human race.

Supernaturalism can be defined in many ways. Below is my attempt to generalize all supernatural beliefs;

a) The world and its inhabitance were designed by a higher being/s.

b) Since the higher being/s created the world it/they can manipulate at least
certain rules of nature.

c) It is beneficial for people to interact with these spirits.

Those who accept supernaturalism are part of a much larger debate that includes;

a) How many higher beings are there?

b) What are their capabilities?

c) Why did it/they decide to create the world?

d) Are they concerned with human actions?

e) If yes, how do they want people to do act?

f) Can people petition higher beings for personal benefit?

g) If yes, how?

A religion is a collection of answers to these questions. Super-naturalists often acknowledge a particular religion.

A super-naturalist is capable of acting detrimentally to the world and humanity if they believe they are serving a higher cause. The history books are filled with military conquests in the name of religion.

The ethics and morals of naturalism are rooted entirely in bettering the world and its inhabitance. For the sake of a better world naturalists are also liable to commit atrocities. An example of this was Nazi Germany. The Nazi’s believed that the “Aryan mater race” was superior to all other people . Eliminating those who “threaten” the Aryans would ensure a brighter future for the world. Murder and torture seemed like a reasonable price to pay to accomplish their goals.

Humanism is a popular form of naturalism. Humanism is “the denial of any power or moral value superior to that of humanity; the rejection of religion in favour of a belief in the advancement of humanity by its own efforts” . Humanism’s ideology puts human life as the most important value. Anything destructive to human life is utterly rejected unless it is essential to immediate survival. Since most current atheists bend towards humanism ideas like Nazism seem outrageous.

Not everyone chooses to accept naturalism or supernaturalism. Some people are agnostic and others are a bit of both.

Naturalism gained popularity in the era of the industrial revolution . In my opinion, prior to certain inventions such abilities were attributed to God or witchcraft. Many people though; if humans have godly powers why do we need God? If our capabilities are in the range of God’s and we can’t see him then he must not exists. This triggered a misconception that there was evidence to naturalism.
The astonishment from scientific breakthroughs ignited mass excitement beyond anything in human history. The collective human ego began expanding rapidly. The intellectual “enlightenment” that came with industrialization was so powerful that it caused major social changes. Some of the ideologies that grew at the time include capitalism , communism and democracy . Although these concepts existed prior to the industrial revolution they were popularized in that time.

“Reason was advocated as the primary source for legitimacy and authority” . Since all human minds are in general range of each other why should one have unequal dominion? People subsequently rebelled against the concept of birthright superiority. People who believed they had involuntary jurisdiction over others were vigorously fought. Monarchs were replaced with elected politicians. Everyone was given the right to reach any seat in the government.

People that held onto supernaturalism put such ideas secondary to the modern way of thinking. Since most religions are not based on tangible evidence people were no longer willing to allow a religion to persecute other faiths. Even while maintaining loyalty to a religion people questioned the likelihood of their faith being the sole truth. This caused people to tolerate opposing religious views. The humanitarian idea that peaceful relationships are beneficial to humanity took priority over fighting for G-d. I believe that without properly considering the facts many people replaced God with science.

Some governments set out to control religion while others built a separation of church and state. Many countries that maintained a connection with religion gave equal benefits to all faiths.

The enthusiasm from human progression went far beyond the sciences. A new ethical and moral system evolved. Even though these concepts have no scientific basis they are regarded as being superior to those of the past.

It is astonishing to see people who strongly identify with religion forsake their teachings for mind generated ethics. For example, homosexuality is clearly forbidden in the bible . Many religious groups that consider the bible the foundation of their religion reject the prohibition of homosexuality .

Outright denouncing an order from the so called “God” of the bible because of artificial ethics replaces God’s authority with man’s understanding. Yet some of these groups still claim that they are following God’s word. If they would maintain theism but reject the divinity of the bible it would be consistent. However, How could an honest person believe they are following God when they have an unlimited right to reject his commands? This is the most mind boggling concept I’ve come across in my life.

Perhaps it is a form of denial. It seems that these people want to embrace naturalism but refuse to completely let go of supernaturalism. They therefore follow their religion as long as it does not majorly conflict with modern ideology. When it does, they quarantine that part of their religion and come up with an excuse such as “mistranslated” text. If texts can be so drastically mistranslated then everything in “God’s book” can be interpreted as one wish. Hence the outcome is that man’s logic is the ultimate authority.

Naturalism is still the dominating ideology of the Western world. Many Westerners view sincere faith as childish. Perhaps people consider their involvement in religion some sort of theater or bonding to heritage. Since people’s main loyalty is to naturalism while maintaining a minimal attachment to religion it is easy to acknowledge opposing faiths. But has humanity progressed in true tolerance to opposing views?

In the west, supernaturalism is only allowed to exist if it’s conducive to the atheistic vision of human progression. Governments who claim to provide freedom of religion will intervene when they consider a practice contradictory to the common ethics of society. Many of these ethics are artificially produced and have absolutely no grounding in logic.

A practical example is; polygamy is a felony in the USA . Freedom of religion is not only an accepted value in the USA it is one of the foundations on which the country was established. Not to condone polygamy but the argument against it an ethical opinion. Some religions allow and even encourage polygamy . There are regions that polygamy is a normal way of life. Western cultures only practiced monogamy for many years. People who were not exposed to polygamy may find it appalling. However, what is the basis to say that polygamy is wrong? Therefore the prohibition of polygamy is an example of artificial ethics that currently override the freedom to practice religion.

Over the years some governments actively regulated religion forcing them to modify or limit their activities. Those who refused to comply were threatened with death or incarceration. One such example was the Former Soviet Union. Contrary to common knowledge the constitution of the FSU promised freedom of religion. However the government believed that its secular idealism had supremacy over religion.
The strict communist “equality” system in the FSU produced a compulsory educational system. The system was completely secular and advocated atheism . If parents refused to send their children to the government controlled schools they were threatened with severe consequences, the crime, endangering the welfare of a minor. Establishing extracurricular institutions would require special licensing which was rarely provided to religious groups. Operating unlicensed schools was a terrible crime.

I heard a personal story from a man whose parents were religious and refused to send him to school on their Sabbath. The ten year old was brought in to a room with ten “education supervisors” who spend hours trying to tell him that religion is outdated and he ought to give it up. “If he continued his foolish ways” they said, his parents would be thrown in jail and he would be sent to live with “better” role models.

Many concepts from communism are considered absurd by today’s thinkers. Comparing the atrocities performed by the Former Soviets to religious catastrophes one can argue that atheistic ideas can be more detrimental then religion.

After dwindling for decades supernaturalism is having a comeback, not necessarily in the form of traditional religion but in many “new age ” ways. The adamant rejection to spirituality from the past has relatively disappeared. Religion is no longer considered a human disability. Many modern thinkers are involved in some form of “spiritual” practice. Spirituality is recognized as a reasonable way to pursue happiness.

Masses began to realize that naturalism does not have the answers to all of life’s questions. In addition, many secular ideas of the past were proven useless or harmful. If a scientific theory does not have concrete evidence it is acceptable to reject it.

Since the industrial revolution there were many innovations which people thought were impossible prior to their discovery. After Alexander Gray n' Bell invented the phone people understood that voice can go through a wire. The notion that voice could travel through air would have seemed impossible at the time. The discovery of radio waves enlightened people to a reality that was formally unknown. What seems supernatural yesterday can be reality tomorrow. The steam engine, electricity and atomic energy were all exponential leaps that were unimaginable before they were invented.

This phenomenon creates a “factor X” in people’s minds. “Factor X” is the realities that are yet unknown. The more science advances the more logical it is to accept a “factor X” that holds unlimited realities that we don’t know about. Whether or not they will ever be discovered does not change the fact that they exist.

One may suggest that Factor X made people comfortable to re-engage in spiritual practice. Science is no longer perfect. The fact that science never observed a deity can fairly be attributed to its inability. The atheist’s rejection to this possibility is similar to blind faith in religion. How can one prove there is no God? Besides for giving room for religion Factor X gave birth to the more sensible agnosticism. “An agnostic insists that it is impossible to prove that there is no God and impossible to prove that there is one” .

However, when practically comparing atheism to theism one may argue that atheism is still more rational. It is beyond logic to predict the “Hoverboard” since it is beyond anything known to man. The same is true when declaring that a deity exists. It seems irrational to assume something without evidence.

People have a tendency to maintain their opinions even when there is reason to change . Some people suggest that this is why people maintain theism. There were however atheists who changed and embrace theism. Factor X may be a sufficient reason to maintain faith but it’s definitely not a reasonable explanation for embracing it. It seems illogical to suggest that people would forgo a more rational belief for a less rational one. This does not prove that deities exist, however the fact that masses have returned to supernaturalism indicates that something is compelling them to do so.

Do humans have a void that needs to be filled with abstract senseless ideas? It definitely seems so! It seems that people refuse to accept that the world just fell into place. The need for an explanation seems to lead people to believe impractical conclusions. It is this so called handicap that I call the soul.

How can you find your self?

My statement to religious people; Your “I” is so important to you that you use so much energy and resources to secure it. Did you research and confirm that you are properly serving your “I”? Or did you accept something with “blind faith”? If you answer the latter, why are you neglecting yourself? If there is a G-d who programmed you he either gave you the tools to find yourself or doesn’t want you to know what you are. If G-d wants you to have blind faith then why would he care which religion you choose? A religion which demands blind faith and condemns those who choose another blind faith is hypocritical. I reject all such religions since it goes against the very cure of my “I” in this current reality. Such religions say that the “I” was placed into a reality where it can’t find itself. If that is true I should commit suicide to enter a reality where I could better understand myself.
If you want to remain in this world and be comfortable with you “I”, you must believe that it can be protected based on logical understanding.

My statement to atheists; you may not know G-d but you know your “I”. You know it is beyond anything science understands. You know it will continue. Don’t give up on understanding true reality because some preachers make no sense. The preacher’s mistake is they have “blind faith” which leads them to believing things that are completely illogical. Be better and find the real truth instead of giving up and saying there is none.

Does your religion help you find yourself?

Science does a good job at learning the rules of our current physical reality. Being that the next X amount of years you are in this physical world you should try to maximize productivity here. I respect science for its accomplishments. But the most important thing to me as well as everyone else is the “I”. Do you care about the many planets that blow up on a regular basis? Obviously not, because your “I” has no connection to them. Why should you care about this world unless your “I” truly benefits?

Being that your human logic tells you that your “I” is beyond the physical; your body is also affected. You want you to take care of your “I”. This is why people want religion. They are looking to connect with their true reality which they know did not come from apes.

Often atheists speak about G-d more often than religious people. They reject all the explanations they were told. They are left with a huge void causing them to yearn for the real answer. They need to remind themselves over and over that the truth has not yet been found (at least by them).

People who accept a religion convince themselves that they know what their “I” is and how to protect it. Hypothetically most people are wrong since most religions contradict each other. Either one or none is correct. That’s why I respect atheists since they know that they don’t know.

What is the difference between atheism and religion?

OK, I said the previous post was the last atheist talk, but I need to conclude the topic. After debating the atheist topic with many people I must conclude, that there are differences between religion and atheism.

Atheists unlike religious people;
1) Have no rituals
2) Have no defined belief
3) Have no peer pressure limiting their thinking
4) Majority believe their idea is logical, (many religions claim to be “faith”)
5) Are mostly willing to explore other possibilities

Any more?

There is still a major difference in not accepting a deity and believing there is
none.

Personally I didn’t always accept that there is a Deity, but I did refuse to deny that there is none. Many atheists whom I spoke to said, that they think the same way. For this blog’s sake I would like to rename such atheists to “soulsearchers” being that they don’t have an “ism” and are opened to thinking beyond what they know. I understand they don’t believe there is a soul, but at least they are willing to explore the possibility.

Is atheism a religion?

[ http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/atheism
1. The doctrine or belief that there is no God.
2. Disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings ]

This seems to include all defections of “supreme beings”.

If science can’t prove it knows everything, how could you say that there is proof that no deity exists? Certain definitions of a deity are clearly disproven by science. But, is the “disbelief in the existence of a supreme being” based on logic? Perhaps an atheist rejects the definition of God that they were taught? Perhaps some atheists don’t know that there are many spiritual concepts which science didn’t investigate?

[The Guitar Man] “Alternatively you need to logically prove that the religious viewpoint is logically superior to the scientific viewpoint. You are going to have a hard time with that.”

From the early days of the scientific method many scientists believed that either God does not exist or, he is un-provable. Both of these assumptions are non-scientific.

[ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

“…a method of inquiry must be based on gathering observable, empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning. A scientific method consists of the collection of data through observation and experimentation, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses...

These steps must be repeatable in order to dependably predict any future results. Theories that encompass wider domains of inquiry may bind many independently-derived hypotheses together in a coherent, supportive structure. This in turn may help form new hypotheses or place groups of hypotheses into context.

Among other facets shared by the various fields of inquiry is the conviction that the process be objective to reduce biased interpretations of the results. Another basic expectation is to document, archive and share all data and methodology so they are available for careful scrutiny by other scientists, thereby allowing other researchers the opportunity to verify results by attempting to reproduce them. This practice, called full disclosure, also allows statistical measures of the reliability of these data to be established. ]

Prior to science there were few people who didn’t follow a religion. Even after many years of science majority of people still believe in a religion.
Is there a rule of nature that is 1) as repeatable as religion 2) has “wider domains of inquiry” than religion?

In the early years of science masses turned to atheism. In the past 30 year spirituality is growing exponentially. Isn’t it logical that since humans believe in spirituality after hundreds of years of science, people will always continue to believe? On this evidence alone this blog is a scientific “hypotheses”.

An open minded intellectual would say “I’m not sure if there is or isn’t a deity” unless they have proof either way. If someone says “I believe that there is no God” how is this different from the leap of faith that there is a God?

[The guitar man]“There is a wealth of wisdom that awaits those who venture away from their Bibles, churches and mosques. I think it is every man's right to explore these ideas and take from them what comfort and hope he can.”

I partially agree with you, I think people should venture. This includes venturing through the Bible/s and science. If people accept scientific theories without rethinking the evidence and method then the scientific method won’t work. The reason scientific method works is because numerous challenges cut away mistakes and whatever is left has a good chance of being true.

I began presenting Social Scientific signs of the super-natural. I already discussed them with psychologists many of whom agree. After reading each post, feel free to propose an hypotheses which contradicts this blog.

OK, enough atheist talk. Next post we will return to logically searching for spirituality.

Does science disprove the existence of spirituality?

[The Guitar Man] “You say atheism has no logical proof? Atheism has tons of scientific proof. We have telescopes mounted on satellites that can see images of the universe at the dawn of time. These telescopes have scoured the universe and there no sign of him. Where is he hiding?”

If the concept of a deity is an organism like creature in the heavens, I’m an atheist. How can this organism control what goes in the world if it is so far? When it manipulates nature why don’t we see it? Why can’t we see it in a telescope?

Imagine you invent the CD. You bring the CD to the home of the best microscope in the world. You announce to a group of scientists that the entire encyclopedia is written on this little disc. The scientists examine the disc with the microscope and determine that you are lying.

How many different planes of reality are there?

Radio: Tell people from the Stone Age that a voice is being transmitted through the air. What would they think?

Science revealed many planes of reality. Some realities need tools to influence them. Can science prove that all realities are obtainable via physical vessels? Could science prove that all types of realities were already discovered?

Do any belief systems advocate a deity which doesn’t contradict science?