Lexi, I believe that we are all born with a clean plate as far as religion and spirituality is concerned.

The younger we are when first 'taught' about whatever God our parents believe in, the harder it is to think about what is really true, and what is essentially fairytales.

Luckily, most of us these days grow up and start thinking for ourselves, and make up our own minds about how 'spiritual' we are, and what is real and what is not.

Having been brought up with a strict Catholic Mother and a strict Catholic education from years one to twelve, I had the Christian God rammed down my throat on almost a daily basis.

Once I left home, I went out into the real world and really started thinking about what was absolute rubbish in the Bible, and what parts of it I could use to better myself with.

I believe you can never really get religion out of your identity if you grow up with it, but most of us eventually think for ourselves.

Dear Yuyutsu,
>>I have no idea whether or not "the material world accessible through science and mathematics" is all that there is <<
In other words you are :sitting on the fence: as described it in your earlier post. Fair enough, I can understand and accept that.

>> or in other words whether science can potentially answer each and every material question.<<
No “or” here: whether science can or cannot potentially answer every question about the world it investigates is UNRELATED to the question whether or not you believe in the EXISTENCE of a world beyond its realm of investigation.

>> I reject (1) on the grounds that the material world is unreal, an illusion (so if it's all there is, then nothing is),<<
I can understand when Dawkins says that belief in God as a delusion (though I disagree with him), however I cannot understand what a 21st century man means by calling the OBJECT OF SCIENCE'S INVESTIGATION an illusion. Perhaps you meant to say that what scientists investigate are only phenomena, or only APPEARANCES of reality, but that reality as such (Kant’s Ding-an-sich) is directly inaccessible. That touches upon some nuances in the philosophy of science. This is different from the absurd assumption that what science investigates does not exist at all (except in the mind of the investigator - this at least is how Dawkins understands his delusion).

I know that Buddhists speak of the material world as an illusion, however that is a language that in modern times - when so much more is know about science -needs an appropriate interpretation (like e.g. the biblical creation in six days). (ctd)

(ctd)
>> and I reject (2) on the grounds that God is not a “something”<<
Neither my (1) nor (2) contains the word God, and the Something there stands for the extra realm that can be called the Divine, the Holy Other (Rudolf Otto), the spiritual realm or Shunyata if you like, as I stated in a previous post. The concept of God is an ADDITIONAL extra when modelling this Realm (where Christians and Buddhist part ways) as explained in http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=9389#150883.

>>Some atheists, BTW, do believe in the supernatural.<<
That must depend on your definition of “atheist” and/or “supernatural”, otherwise it is a contradictio in se.

I know of many Christians, Buddhists and atheists who would never use the word “nauseating” in this context for whatever reason. You obviously wouldn't be one of them.

Please excuse my capitals, I did not mean to shout; it is just unfortunate that OLO does not accept italics or underlines.

Crabsy,

with reference to your post of Saturday, 9 July 2011 12:41:26 PM, and apologies for the delayed response; I've been having computer problems.

To begin with, I don't have an "aversion for mysticism". Though possibly I can't claim to have been absolutely consistent on the subject over time, I have an aversion for credulous or presumptuous rationalisations of mystical experience. I respect the human capacity for such experience but am sceptical of the headlong and rapt propensity to assign causes. Moreover I argue that the material should take priority over the mystical, whereas to prefer the latter over the former (excluding genuine asceticism) is either the indulgence of privilege, conceit, neglect of responsibility, or combinations thereof.

As for the thread George alludes to, I've argued elsewhere that Jesus' teachings were fundamentally anti-institutional: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=12082#208177 and, same thread, http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=12082#208232
If I understand Toynbee to be promoting "higher" or "universal" religion, for its own sake "and" as the dynamic of history, then I take issue on both counts, though more strongly with the latter than the former. I'm half persuaded that a universal morality "would" conduce to a more peaceful world, if it was "religiously" observed rather than abused (and this was Toynbee's position, I take it). But I'm bemused should anyone profess that such has ever been actually realised. History is witness that such institutions, Catholicism being a prime example, comprise centuries of corruption and intellectual and bloody tyranny, up to this day.
On the more important point, for me, I don't believe that ideology (religion) is the prime dynamic force in history. Marx's means of production seems much more plausibly the prime-mover, though unlike Marx I do suspect ideology is a powerful influence that harasses "progress". I also think humans have an innate potential for goodness and greatness, that alas is easily thwarted.
In answer to your original question then, Lexi, since institutionalised religion has been hitherto corrupt and parochial (despite Toynbee's hopes), it's lamentable that it has and continues to exert such influence on so many hapless individuals (gladly excluding George).

Thank You so much for your continued inputs - please keep them coming.
As I've written in the past - what some have done in the name of religion, projecing their neuroses, even perpetrating evil on the world, does not make religion as a mystical phenomenon invalid. It is unfortunate that our religious institutions have far too often become handmaidens of the status quo, while the genuine religious experience is anything but that. I suppose it is simplistic to think that some
Australians turned away from organised religion and now are coming back, as though that's the whole story. I turned away from religion, found that life without a conscious awareness of God is difficult, and now I'm back to religion because that is, theoretically, where to find Him. But I'm back with an interest in actually having a religious experience. I feel that organised religion will not be the same. It will have to step up to bat, or it will wither away. Organised religious institutions hopefully are in for a huge transformation, for the simple reason that people have become genuinely religious in spite of them.

Dear George,

I don't know whether or not there is/are world(s) beyond science's realm of investigation. Nevertheless, I consider this a material question, not a question about God (or anything spiritual for that matter). I do reject as ridiculous and logically-inconsistent any such notion of an extra "spiritual" realm such as Cloud #9 where God sits on a throne, listens to angelic music, eats ambrosia and drinks nectar.

I certainly do not feel nauseated by God - I LOVE God and my love of Him is most central to my life. Sadly though, I know many people who do feel nauseated upon hearing the word "God", and the most common reason is that they identify "God" with the false ideas propagated about Him by organized "religion" (such as my neighbours telling me as a child who grew up in the Jewish tradition, that if I switched on the light [in the common stairway] on the Sabbath, then God would kill my mum).

Science investigates the objective reality, the material, that which exists, and so it must: objective reality could consist of a single realm or 20 realms or an infinite number of realms, but what's common between them is existence - which is an illusion.

The Truth beyond the illusion of existence, is God - there is nothing but God, yet God does not exist, He is not an object and cannot be observed by science, by our senses or by our mind. What we truly are, is God and I believe that we can come to know Him directly, as our true nature, once we shed our attachments to the illusion.

Dear Squeers,

Asceticism does not happen overnight. We need to begin where we are and yes, we need to perform our duties in this world and we won't get closer to God by neglecting our responsibilities. Yet if we are wise, we would lean towards gradually minimizing our worldly duties rather than endlessly taking up new ones.