Why are you spiritual?

[PathDiagnosis]

Hi all.

A little about my past religious/spiritual life:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=8595332&postcount=1

I would like to know why anyone religious/spiritual here is the way they are. I am really not trying to belittle anyone at all. I have much intellectual interest in religion/spirituality and would like to understand why people need or, or think they need to be spiritual/religious at all?

I am not religious/spiritual. I can honestly say I do not have his “God shaped hole”/need for the divine some speak of. I don’t know why.

I don’t know if God exists and I do not care. Even if a God does exists, I personally see no need or have a desire to be friends/have a relationship.

Please, explain why you need spirituality in life? Is there something lacking in the physical world? Even if you have this desire, why does it need to be filled? Can’t you give it up or find a way to gradually rid yourself of it. Just because you desire it doesn’t mean it’s necessary.

Spirituality and religion (don’t want to get into semantics now) are very foreign to me. I’d like to understand.

 

[followingtheway]

Well, why are you not religious/spiritual?

 

[Tenofovir]

Hi all.

A little about my past religious/spiritual life:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=8595332&postcount=1

I would like to know why anyone religious/spiritual here is the way they are. I am really not trying to belittle anyone at all. I have much intellectual interest in religion/spirituality and would like to understand why people need or, or think they need to be spiritual/religious at all?

I am not religious/spiritual. I can honestly say I do not have his “God shaped hole”/need for the divine some speak of. I don’t know why.

I don’t know if God exists and I do not care. Even if a God does exists, I personally see no need or have a desire to be friends/have a relationship.

Please, explain why you need spirituality in life? Is there something lacking in the physical world? Even if you have this desire, why does it need to be filled? Can’t you give it up or find a way to gradually rid yourself of it. Just because you desire it doesn’t mean it’s necessary.

Spirituality and religion (don’t want to get into semantics now) are very foreign to me. I’d like to understand.

Perhaps you should define what you mean by spirituality? Is it a vague sense of awe at the universe? Is it a New Age type hippy thing? Is it an LSD trip? Is it a feeling that God exists and loves us? Et al. It would help to do so.

Remember that without proper semantics any discussion will be fruitless. You wouldn’t buy a car from someone who can’t tell an engine from a gear box, would you? It helps to know what we mean when we say it, in order to have a proper discussion and come away with something meaningful.

“Even if a God does exists, I personally see no need or have a desire to be friends/have a relationship.”
Since God is love and Being itself and creates/sustains everything on an ongoing basis, it would surely be meaningful to have some sort of connection to Him, ne? We do this for people and things far less important, no? Furthermore this God actually suffered for us. We relate to people who’ve done far less for us, why not relate to God? I mean if not God, why anyone or anything? Why not just go into solipsism?

 

[geoformeo]

PathDiag,

I am spiritual because, simply, humans are inherently spiritual creatures. From the dawn of mankind, spirituality has been a part of humanity. There is not a single human culture that has ever existed that did not have a spiritual element to it. Even today, at the height of science and technology, the atheist/agnostic factions are in the overwhelming minority worldwide.

Please, please do not respond to that with something like, “Well, that’s because they are all uneducated, ignorant, superstitious fools that know nothing of evolutionary biology or modern physics or string theory”. To think that nearly the entire world has it all wrong except for the “enlightened few” when it comes to the reality of God is a view that is extremely arrogant and overwhelmingly unsubstantiated.

So the real question becomes, why are you not spiritual? Apparently you used to be. What happened?

It is curious that you have this:

I have much intellectual interest in religion/spirituality and would like to understand why people need or, or think they need to be spiritual/religious at all?

But also claim that you:

can honestly say I do not have his “God shaped hole”/need for the divine some speak of.

I don’t know if God exists and I do not care. Even if a God does exists, I personally see no need or have a desire to be friends/have a relationship.

Obviously you do care, if you are spending your free time on a Catholic forum discussing spiritual matters. If this world/life is all there is, why are you “wasting” it here? Why do you have any intellectual interest in the matter at all? After all, I have no belief or intellectual interest in fairies or the Flying Spaghetti Monster; hence, I do not spend any time or energy at all on them.

Why do you personally see no need to have a relationship with God, if He exists? Does not the universe in itself demand an explanation for existence, and does not the physical evidence therein demonstrate that if said God exists that He is a personal God?

Is there something lacking in the physical world?

Yes, perfect communion with God. Which is why people are never satisfied with anything on Earth. You can always be healthier, more beautiful, richer, more powerful, etc., but none of it ever makes one truly happier. If Earth were heaven, there would be nothing to long for. However, we all long for eternal life, health, love, relationship…the exact things that were lost at the Fall, redeemed through the Passion and Resurrection, and will be restored to the faithful upon death.

Even if you have this desire, why does it need to be filled? Can’t you give it up or find a way to gradually rid yourself of it. Just because you desire it doesn’t mean it’s necessary.

Do you have any desires that need not be filled? I will grant you that just because one has a desire, doesn’t mean it is necessary (gluttony and lust come to mind). However, it does mean that the desired object(s) is real (food, sex).

Spirituality and religion (don’t want to get into semantics now) are very foreign to me. I’d like to understand.

How can they be foreign if they were a significant part of your life for a substantial period of time? Apparently you were a Protestant who converted to Catholicism and are now agnostic/atheist. Care to shed a little light on this subject?

Thank you for being here. May God bless your quest for Truth.

 

[Ohana]

Hmm, let me think more about this. I yearn to be more spiritual that I truly am. So let me reflect on this a day or so. and I will repost. In the meantime. I applaud your courage for asking.

 

[Khalid]

Without getting in to philosophy (thing such as moral ontology, etc.): I am Catholic, because it has been logically and metaphysically proven that God exists, and I believe the Christian faith is the most likely outcome of an active, immanent God, and the Catholic Church is the only organization that can be correct, if Christianity is correct.

I admit Deism is a logical possibility as well, but Deism necessarily involves God being indifferent at best, and likely evil, and several of the proofs for God’s existence - the ontological argument, the argument from morality, and the argument from Pure Act/the Unmoved Mover - also are proofs that God is not evil. Judaism is similarly a logical possibility, but runs in to many of the same problems as Deism vis a vis the afterlife.

It is impossible that God does not exist, and it is equally impossible for some absurd beliefs to be true, or revelations from God. All polytheistic faiths (Hinduism, Mormonism, Shinto) can be dismissed on metaphysical grounds. Jainism can be dismissed based on demonstrably false assertions that are fundamental dogmata, such as a past-eternal universe. Islam can be dismissed on grounds of history, doctrine, and the behavior it inspires and considers correct, as inconsistent with the nature of God as deduced from argumentation.

Gnosticism, in the form of the religions of the philosophers (e.g. Platonism, Neo-Platonism and to a lesser degree Stoicism) are, in my opinion, the best contenders for “truth” outside of Christianity, and are the hardest to defend against. Buddhism is seemingly strong - and is unconquerable in its own fortress - but contains an agnostic perspective and a disregard for knowledge/logic, a contradiction-embracing, quasi-Humean and nominalist philosophy which is incompatible with truth, or even any theory of the possibility of knowing truth, with a small t.

Thus, I admit that Deism, Judaism, Platonism, and Neo-Platonism/Gnosticism are strong contenders, but each contains an insurmountable defeater of itself, except for classical Platonism. I do not admit the possibility that God does not exist, as it is metaphysically absurd.

Simply, I am a Catholic because Catholicism is Truth: the greatest truth we mortals have access to. I have proven, or it has been proven to me contra my former positions, logico-philosophically, what truth is. Once one rejects modernist, nominalist/conceptualist philosophy, and realizes that the ancients - Aristotle - had it true - theism follows, and Christianity seems to follow from theism better than any alternative.

 

[Tenofovir]

Without getting in to philosophy (thing such as moral ontology, etc.): I am Catholic, because it has been logically and metaphysically proven that God exists, and I believe the Christian faith is the most likely outcome of an active, immanent God, and the Catholic Church is the only organization that can be correct, if Christianity is correct…

What he said

 

[Khalid]

What he said

What he said.

Talk about arguing in circles - the last three posts illustrate the question-begging inherent in atheism!

 

[Tenofovir]

What he said.

Talk about arguing in circles - the last three posts illustrate the question-begging inherent in atheism!

You should post on Ed Feser’s blog, perhaps you already post there .

 

[PathDiagnosis]

Without getting in to philosophy (thing such as moral ontology, etc.): I am Catholic, because it has been logically and metaphysically proven that God exists, and I believe the Christian faith is the most likely outcome of an active, immanent God, and the Catholic Church is the only organization that can be correct, if Christianity is correct.

I admit Deism is a logical possibility as well, but Deism necessarily involves God being indifferent at best, and likely evil, and several of the proofs for God’s existence - the ontological argument, the argument from morality, and the argument from Pure Act/the Unmoved Mover - also are proofs that God is not evil. Judaism is similarly a logical possibility, but runs in to many of the same problems as Deism vis a vis the afterlife.

It is impossible that God does not exist, and it is equally impossible for some absurd beliefs to be true, or revelations from God. All polytheistic faiths (Hinduism, Mormonism, Shinto) can be dismissed on metaphysical grounds. Jainism can be dismissed based on demonstrably false assertions that are fundamental dogmata, such as a past-eternal universe. Islam can be dismissed on grounds of history, doctrine, and the behavior it inspires and considers correct, as inconsistent with the nature of God as deduced from argumentation.

Gnosticism, in the form of the religions of the philosophers (e.g. Platonism, Neo-Platonism and to a lesser degree Stoicism) are, in my opinion, the best contenders for “truth” outside of Christianity, and are the hardest to defend against. Buddhism is seemingly strong - and is unconquerable in its own fortress - but contains an agnostic perspective and a disregard for knowledge/logic, a contradiction-embracing, quasi-Humean and nominalist philosophy which is incompatible with truth, or even any theory of the possibility of knowing truth, with a small t.

Thus, I admit that Deism, Judaism, Platonism, and Neo-Platonism/Gnosticism are strong contenders, but each contains an insurmountable defeater of itself, except for classical Platonism. I do not admit the possibility that God does not exist, as it is metaphysically absurd.

Simply, I am a Catholic because Catholicism is Truth: the greatest truth we mortals have access to. I have proven, or it has been proven to me contra my former positions, logico-philosophically, what truth is. Once one rejects modernist, nominalist/conceptualist philosophy, and realizes that the ancients - Aristotle - had it true - theism follows, and Christianity seems to follow from theism better than any alternative.

Thank you. I’ll think about this. I like your post.

Noticed you may attend Tridentine liturgy. That’s what I did when I was Catholic (FSSP, in union with the Holy See!)!!! Luckily, I lived (and still do) walking distance from a parish with the Tridentine Mass.
Peace

 

[meltzerboy]

Without getting in to philosophy (thing such as moral ontology, etc.): I am Catholic, because it has been logically and metaphysically proven that God exists, and I believe the Christian faith is the most likely outcome of an active, immanent God, and the Catholic Church is the only organization that can be correct, if Christianity is correct.

I admit Deism is a logical possibility as well, but Deism necessarily involves God being indifferent at best, and likely evil, and several of the proofs for God’s existence - the ontological argument, the argument from morality, and the argument from Pure Act/the Unmoved Mover - also are proofs that God is not evil. Judaism is similarly a logical possibility, but runs in to many of the same problems as Deism vis a vis the afterlife.

It is impossible that God does not exist, and it is equally impossible for some absurd beliefs to be true, or revelations from God. All polytheistic faiths (Hinduism, Mormonism, Shinto) can be dismissed on metaphysical grounds. Jainism can be dismissed based on demonstrably false assertions that are fundamental dogmata, such as a past-eternal universe. Islam can be dismissed on grounds of history, doctrine, and the behavior it inspires and considers correct, as inconsistent with the nature of God as deduced from argumentation.

Gnosticism, in the form of the religions of the philosophers (e.g. Platonism, Neo-Platonism and to a lesser degree Stoicism) are, in my opinion, the best contenders for “truth” outside of Christianity, and are the hardest to defend against. Buddhism is seemingly strong - and is unconquerable in its own fortress - but contains an agnostic perspective and a disregard for knowledge/logic, a contradiction-embracing, quasi-Humean and nominalist philosophy which is incompatible with truth, or even any theory of the possibility of knowing truth, with a small t.

Thus, I admit that Deism, Judaism, Platonism, and Neo-Platonism/Gnosticism are strong contenders, but each contains an insurmountable defeater of itself, except for classical Platonism. I do not admit the possibility that God does not exist, as it is metaphysically absurd.

Simply, I am a Catholic because Catholicism is Truth: the greatest truth we mortals have access to. I have proven, or it has been proven to me contra my former positions, logico-philosophically, what truth is. Once one rejects modernist, nominalist/conceptualist philosophy, and realizes that the ancients - Aristotle - had it true - theism follows, and Christianity seems to follow from theism better than any alternative.

I don’t really wish to deviate from the thread too much, but I was struck by your statement expressing a parallel between deism and Judaism, in which you state that “Judaism is similarly a logical possibility, but runs in to many of the same problems as Deism vis a vis the afterlife.” Most of modern Jewry derives from the Pharisaic tradition (rather than Sadducees or Essenes), which believes in an afterlife. There is not too much to be said about the afterlife, however, based on the Torah and the other parts of the Hebrew Bible. Still, the majority of Jews believe in an afterlife, while preferring to focus on the here and now by means of faith in action in the present. But there is no doubt that Judaism believes in a very personal relationship with G-d, not an impersonal G-d as does deism.

 

[Khalid]

You should post on Ed Feser’s blog, perhaps you already post there .

The only thing I’ve ever read on Feser’s blog is his “Original Sin and Modern Biology” or something of the sort, which I thought was brilliant. One of his books - The Last Superstition - got me thinking about Aristotelianism, and likely should be considered a formative influence, or at least the impetus, for who I am today. I also love his Aquinas for Beginners (read after The Last Superstition, pushed me even more down the old Peripatetic road, and began to demystify the Summa Theologiae and bring it in to the present as more than a quaint piece of religious antiquaria) and Philosophy of Mind - one of the few books on the subject that’s written with an eye to problems raised by theism with the most common post-Humean, post-Kantian type of philosophy of mind present today.

His Locke is a riot - maybe because I agree with him on Locke, while not downplaying the historical importance of Locke. In the modern day, there’s a cult of orthodox philosophy which has built up around Hume - that brilliant sophist - Kant, and Hegel, which all eventually converge at Hume and Locke, in the metaphysical and practical domains, respectively: thus, nearly every book on Locke is unending praise. He says something like, “The acceptance of Locke himself is the ultimate expression of relativism - it’s universally acknowledged that he was a poor philosopher, but we keep his philosophy because we like the results”.

He seems to be a relatively good expositor of introductory Classical philosophy.

 

[ThereWasADream]

Why? I suppose that depends on what you mean by spiritual.

I get the sense you’re a bit like I was once - thinking you don’t have that God-shaped hole in your heart. I remember what that was like…I don’t often feel like praying even now. Sometimes I’d rather not go to mass…sometimes I really just want to do what I want to do. That’s my form of rebelliousness, I suppose.

Let me tell you, though, when I lived the way I wanted to it never turned out well for me. It’s a long story, I suppose, but I guess the answer to your question is: Because it’s damn good for me! I’m a lot better person through living my Catholic faith. I thought I was a lost cause, but through prayer and the sacraments, I’ve miraculously picked up the pieces of what I thought was a failed person. I’m doing well now, and I know that I didn’t do it. I couldn’t have because I tried. Belief in God made the difference for me.

 

[Khalid]

I have a bit of a rationalist tendency, I admit.

 

[erine]

I am religious and spiritual–above all Catholic–because God picked up the isolation of being trapped in self and healed me, and let me breathe in the air of His Truth and presence. It was like I lived my whole life underwater with only a snorkel to breathe, and suddenly was brought up to dry land and a new world. Now I would never trade that although it involves sacrifice. Sacrifice gives meaning to this life unlike just gaining things I want when I want them. The secular world still seems underwater without knowing it; believing the dry land city is imaginary, they can resent evangelization as forcing doctrine on them. They don’t know what they are missing.

Ok there’s my metaphor I could write a lot more but that’s a start!

As an aside, I tried other spiritualities like Khalid, but none worked as above except Catholicism.

 

[Bartolome_Casas]

What is spirituality? You know the answer. Spirituality is that urge that made you post this question that you posted here. No one seeks A unless that have some lack of A. Even posing your questions as you have, as being merely a matter of curiosity, reveals a lack of something. Why else waste your time in coming here? So, you lack spirituality. You want to understand all those more activity involved in spirituality? They are just like you. They too lack spirituality, and, just like you, they are doing something to remedy that lack. I know, you say that you just don’t have a “God shaped hole.” But if that were true, then why are you here? You know from your own experience that when someone says “I was just curious” that they aren’t speaking the truth. There is no such thing as “just curious,” as you know. What is spirituality? You know the answer.

 

[PathDiagnosis]

All my concerns were answered in the “why practice religion” thread.
Thanks