It's funny how some people seem to think that because we have an innate tendency to believe in spiritual shit then that makes it more likely to be real.
As Jung pointed out, that makes it a real psychological object, worthy of serious study as such. This was a big impovement on Freud's simplistic, ultra- reductionist notion that it was all about sublimated sexuality.
However, when you ask the question how objectively "real" these spritual objects such as God are? then you get into very murky waters; much the same murky waters that (1) modern physicists find themselves in. eg, one's definition of objective reality inevitably shifts towards the "unreal" (or non-physical) . And there's and increasing difficulty with disentangling "objective" and "subjective"
Still, if just dip a toe into those murky waters , it quicky becomes evident that our beliefs about "God" and such are so highlly subjective as to reveal a great more about the believer than they do about this objective persence called God (if such exists) . A result that the atheist can reasonably crow about!
(2) That kinda chimes with Jesus' oft-ignored declaration that the "kindom of Heaven is within you", methinks. That is: buried under so very much subjective rubbish, that you'd have to practicallypeel away your entire personality to find it. Though that wouldn't necessarilyy make it unreal . Could be super-real instead, couldn't it?
(1) Got a source for that? I'm not calling you out, I'm genuinely interested.
(2) Belief systems are a complicated entanglement of early social conditioning (beliefs about the nature and the existence of God was drummed into myself and almost everyone I know from the time they were a baby) and (probably) evolutionary psychology - an innate tendency to experience and believe in the spiritual, and toss in a healthy serve of wishful thinking (who doesn't want to live in paradise forever with their loved ones?).
I like to "tune out" my skeptical voice (that probably doesn't make much sense to most of you) when I go to a cathedral (I've been to a few of the world's great cathedrals) or a tribal religious ceremony or even sometimes a museum. And that "feeling" you sometimes get of the presence of God or spirits is possibly an innate part of what it is to be human, the result of millions of years of evolution, or at least it seems that way to me. But at the end of the day I'm still an empiricist, a tooth fairy atheist.
(1) Can't cite a source as such. It's an impression that's grown in my mind over the course of decades, finding confirmation in multiple souces of info. Already pretty well formed i my youth , when I was taking a big interest in Mathematics and Physics, in a quest to understand the Universe on a fundamental level. Later I drifted towards Psychology, because I felt (and still fel) that the processes of perception and cognition are more fundamental to our
understanding of tbe Universe than "objective reality" is. I'm also attracted by the notion that matter may be the creation of mind, rather than vice-versa (though that would be to see "mind" as a sort of universal substance, in accordance with Buddhism, not to suppose that out indivdual minds have much impact on the whole) In any case , our
perceptions of the material world (and other people especially ) are certainly a creation of our individual minds, and subject all to kinds of bias and intersting errors.
Oops, i'm rambling. I think that The Tao of Physics (
Fritjof Kapra) had the biggest impact on me in terms of crystallising my own impressions re. Physics, and finding support for my vatious theories and opinions, That book was published way back in the seventies, but it still gets rave reviews , so that might actually be the best thing thing to cite as a "source" .
(2) I think our relationship with religion is actually a lot more complex and interesting than that. With reference to Jung again: the recurring mythological themes in religion (as well as ...umm... mythology ) are said to correspond to inborn psychological archetypes. Evolution is clearly implicated in providing our minds with these archetypes, but that's not to suppose that their purpose is purely biological. They become all the more intersting in the latter part of life, when ourr biological role is largely spent (yeah, you
can call that sublimation, but that theory doesn't take you very far. You need to drop it, hypothetically, before you can really begin get to grips with this stuff). Anyway, most of this archetypal material is unconscious, of course. According to Jung (and according to my own observations) our unconscious minds are a damned sight bigger than our consciopus mind (or ego) and contain a lot of undeveloped potential, not merely repressed material.
When archetypal material impinges on the conscious mind , it tends to have a numinous feeling, as if one were in contact with something much greater than onself. Which indeed is the case . But to mistake it for the "voice of God" can have some nasty consequences, as we;'ve seen. It can also have sublime consequences, but best to leave God out of it.
The one thing we humans can say about God with any certainty is that our human brains (or our human mind-sets, more to the point) are far too small to encompass him, so the best we can do is create and recreate him in our own image. The idea that we can realistically describe , define and speak for him is sheer arrogance.
I see "spirituality " and "religion" as two opposite ends of a spectrum. "spiritualiy" represents that semnse of connection with something larger than oneself, together with a sincere attempt to comprehend it, whereas Religion results from the formalisation and ossification of spiritual experience, and is often utilised to destructive, primitive and/or egotistic ends. Any call for blind faith in some immutable doctrine is bound to run counter to the growth of understanding , isn't it? Looks to me (from the evidence of the Gospels) like Jesus was a highly spiritual sort of guy, but that Christianity has largely misappropriated that spirituality. That said Christianity works on a spiritual level , in a fashion, because the potency of its symbols can inspire that sense of connection, but then the various doctrines and institutions work to discourage the convert from developing his own understanding. Same goes for other religions, of course, even Buddhism. Siiddharta Gautama spoke out against the worship of graven images (as did Moses) and how do most his followers repond to his sage advice? By worshipping graven images of Siddharta Gautama
Corrupt as heck, but a harmless response to a harmless human need , I should think. Not a problem, really, not until people start insisting that the everybody else adopt the exact same symbols and rituals . Then it becomes repressive. But those repressions are not promped by spirituality , but more by a drive to put a lid on spirituality , and reduce life down to a simple set of explit rules. Other non-religious docrines serve the same pupose and excite the same fervour as people on this board have often pointed out. It's all exceedingly human and natural (God help us!
)
