I'm a cynical optimist. It's healthy for me.

[rootofnewt]

I think a lot of people have the need of guided ritual in their lives. I don't really have that need. I take nostalgic comfort in the hymns of Protestant churches (both primitive and Liturgical) and in the rituals of the Episcopal church, but I take far more comfort in just walking through the woods or sitting on a rock.

Talking with my husband, I see that he has far more of a need for some kind of regular, guided, spiritual ritual in his life than I do. I'd like to support him, yet we don't really want to go to any sort of religious service--we're simple too scientific and cynical to do hypocritical things like that. At the same time, he's really feeling the lack of any specific set ritual. Maybe it's part of his Roman Catholic upbringing, maybe it's more.

I've offered to pay more attention to the neopagan Celtic sabbats and the full moons. I already do celebrate most of them with food, decor, or other traditions, but I'm not one to meditate upon or pray to any specific deity. I do not believe nor disbelieve in any deity--I acknowlege the potential existence of them all and believe that every one must find zir own path to the next level--whatever that may or may not be.

So many people feel the need for black and white, for clearcut definitions of what is and is not. The thing is, as we learn more and more about the way our universe works, we learn that we know very, very little and that what we thought was, is not. There are no absolutes. Life is many shades and none at all. I take comfort in this, but I'm one of those people who sees a divinity inherent within chaos. When I dance in the autumn leaves, my mind is twisting in fractal iterations, turning this way and that, predictable and wild.

To paraphrase a professor of flynnk (and he can correct me on this), a true scientist cannot be an atheist, for that is an absolute point of view and without proof of the non-existence, we cannot claim that there is no God, just as we cannot claim that there is one without proof. Succinctly, agnosticism is a more valid scientific spiritual path than either atheism or devout religious fervor.

I've offered to help motivate boy to attend events or sessions at the local Tibetan Buddhist center. I've offered to go to the local Unitarian pagan gatherings, though I dislike participating in casting circles as much as I dislike participating in the Eucharist. I've offered to take him to Episcopal Evensong. Our own beliefs lie much more in line with Daoistic thought, with the balance and perseverance of Buddhism.

It's in my nature to recognize patterns. My spiritual needs are met in this. I am constantly aware of the give and take around me, of the flow and the way everything is interconnected, hence my ability to take in a walk in the woods as a spiritual salve. It's also one of the reasons I can be enthralled by the power of tornadoes, while acknowleging the horror loss of life brings. I see death as part of life--a necessary part--but that doesn't mean I don't mourn for what is lost.

I think a lot of people in my generation feel a need for something. I don't fault anyone for seeking it where they may, but I think a lot of people are looking in the wrong places and are putting too much strain on themselves. I do wonder if the plethora of options we have doesn't lead to false expectations and if it doesn't also contribute to a feeling of failure or loss where neither is necessarily present.

A hundred years ago, I'd be expected to be a (house)wife and mother. While getting married and having children were silent expectations, my options for living beyond that were wide open. My husband sometimes expresses frustration at the options and wonders if he wouldn't have been happier just getting a job doing what his father and his father's father did, be it plumbing or pharmacy or farming. Of course, that expectation wasn't even there for him, since our parents were Baby Boomers and were expected to succeed in ways their parents could not. As children of Baby Boomers, we're expected to take advantage of our good fortune and exceed all expectations.

All of the options and all of the labor-saving devices common to our era give us a lot more free time than our predecessors had. Incessant worrying and fear seems to breed depression and while I recognize depression as a valid illness, I think that a lot of it could be avoided if people would actually think about the thought patterns that cause them distress and learn ways to manage those thoughts and to create new paradigms. Some people need medication, others need therapy, but I think far more just need centering and grounding. To that end, it's easy to see why yoga, tai chi, and qi gong are gaining popularity. People need balance.

I think that a lot of people just need to relax and find their own path. Don't become bogged down by the prospects of eventualities you cannot yet fathom. Live life for the present. Sure, it's good to have a contingency plan--education is wonderful, work experience is excellent--but don't become obsessed with the little things.

Boy often wonders how our parents did it--working and worrying and raising children. He gets frustrated when I tell him people just live and do what they need to do. I told him yesterday that they got through long days with little sleep by using caffeine and he got a bit aggravated, but it's true. Hard work, diligence, love, and never expecting that you will or will not be in the same place tomorrow or next week or the next year or decade. You hope, but you don't count on anything.

My path is not your path, but my path is free of psychotherapy and my path leaves me content and happy. May your path help you find the same.

Comments

I started this?

[flynnk.livejournal.com]

Okay, since I am alleged as the source of the quote, I should probably chime in here.

Firstly, I believe that I conveyed the quote to Jos during a conversation that explored some of the topics discussed here. It did not originate with one of my professors, but rather with a rather famous scientist, who I of course do not remember. The general gist of it is properly reflected in Jos's piece.

Anyway, I think the argument comes down to how hard it is to prove a negative; it is very difficult to prove that something does not exist. If you acknowledge the possibility, however remote, that their might be a God, much as you acknowledge the possiblity that the table might start playing tricks with your coffee, then in my view, that is an agnostic position.

An atheist is sure. Certainity scares me. Too often the people who I detest the most (say Orthodox *anything*) are very, very, sure.

Of course, just because you are agnostic does not mean that you have to acknowledge Pascal's Wager. You don't have to do anything about it. You don't have to put the towels down. You don't have to go dance with snakes, wear a funny hat (what the hell is it with all religions and funny hats?), or do anything else. I certainly don't.

I do however, believe in something of a reverse Pascal's wadger. I believe that ethics and standards of behavior are independently deriviable things that do not originate in any supernatural experience. Therefore, living ethically is the right thing to do. If one lives ethically, and lives a good life, one should be covering all of one's bases. If there is a heaven, then if I do the things I'm going to do anyway, I should be good to go.

Of course there are those that believe you have to swear fealty to a particular religion, but that doesn't make any logical sense, and seems more easily discarded. The general notion of the existance of God is seperated from the various Biblical requirements.

In the end, this discussion should prove meaningless, as it should not have any consequences on what one actually does. Mostly it's about perspective and being open to ideas of any stripe. I think as I've gotten a wee bit older, I've become more and more willing to listen to new and different ideas.

Unless the idea is Creationism. That's a capital offense.

Re: I started this?

[vito-excalibur.livejournal.com]

If you acknowledge the possibility, however remote, that their might be a God, much as you acknowledge the possiblity that the table might start playing tricks with your coffee, then in my view, that is an agnostic position.

I last checked my bank balance a couple days ago. I can't prove that some kind soul (perhaps from Nigeria) didn't deposit ten thousand dollars in it since I last checked; that would violate no laws of physics. Furthermore, even if I could remember my password to get online & check my balance, I can't prove that someone didn't give me the extra money AND the bank didn't make a mistake in reporting my balance online. In a very real sense, there is no way to prove what the balance in my bank account is, since they don't have the dollar bills sitting around anywhere; it's just what they & I agree it is.

Nonetheless, I am not agnostic about how much money I have in my bank account. If you ask me whether I have more than ten thousand dollars in it, I don't say "I don't think so, but I admit there's a possibility that I might." I say "No. Alas." If you ask me whether there is a god, I don't say "I don't think so, but I admit there's a possibility that there might be." I say "No."

Of course there are those that believe you have to swear fealty to a particular religion, but that doesn't make any logical sense, and seems more easily discarded.

And I think your argument gets a little hand-wavy here. I don't see why it makes any less sense to believe that you have to swear fealty to a particular religion than it does to believe that there is a god in general. By what you said before, if there's the slightest chance that it might be true that you have to swear fealty to a particular religion, shouldn't you be agnostic towards that possibility? Or towards the possibility that you have to swear fealty to any of them? Or that you have to swear fealty to all of them, mutually exclusive as they are? This is why I can't be agnostic; there are too many things for me to be agnostic about.