Is There A God? (by alaric)
But what do I mean by influences from Chaos Magick? What is Chaos Magick?
Well, I'll let Wikipedia answer the last question: Chaos magick.
And what inspiration do I take from it? Well, the concept of paradigm shifting fits right in with my flexible approach to reality. As I metaphorised above, I'll happily make a choice without being particularly bothered about whether it's the correct one if there's no definite evidence for or against. Chaos magicians "paradigm shift" whenever it's convenient. And that comes naturally to me.
Ok, I'm not a serious chaos magician; I just came across the ideas (my father is involved in the movement), and found them harmonious with my own. I don't really call myself a magician. However, despite my statement above that I generally assume (without certainty) that there is no god or other supernatural forces about, and that the world we see is entirely the product of blind mechanistic principles that will, in principle, one day all be discovered and expressed in precise mathematical notation, when it's convenient, I am quite happy to temporarily believe in anything that seems pertinent.
For example, when I lived in Ealing, there was a point in my walk from the tube station back to the flat that felt wrong. Even though it was the quickest route home, it always seemed faster to walk a slightly longer route that avoided this spot. That one little stretch of road seemed to take a long time to walk through, and exuded a sense of foreboding and menace.
And, often, when I was walking through it, I felt followed and watched. If I thought about it, I could sense a conscious entity about two paces behind me, even though I could see nobody there.
Finding this unpleasant, one evening I looked over my shoulder and said "There's no need to skulk around like that. If you want to walk with me, walk beside me. If there's anything you want to tell me, then say it. Don't keep freaking me out like that."
And the invisible entity I sensed moved forward and walked beside me, all the way to the door of the building. Beside me, it felt less menacing. But at the door, I told it it was not invited inside my home. It seemed a wise thing to say.
Now, by paradigm shifting, I can quite happily say "I talked openly to a ghost and told it to stop acting in a hostile manner, and it worked", then in the same breath say "I see no reason to believe there is any continuation of consciousness after death".
From a materialistic perspective, I can say that my feeling of foreboding on that bit of road was probably just some primitive part of me introducing a slight cautiousness due to the fact it was a dark bit of road with poor lighting, and my "talking to the ghost" was probably just me fooling myself I was doing something about it, which therefore made me feel better.
Maybe that is the case. I have no way of knowing. I don't actually care what the truth is. I shifted to a "this is probably an angry ghost spooking people, but if I act civilly and acceptingly towards it I'll improve its mood" paradigm, and the result was success. That's all that really matters.
Tue 1st May 2007 11:00 pm 
Subscribe
By David Cantrell, Wed 2nd May 2007 @ 8:00 pm
Never having done any scouting I know nothing at all about it, but what makes you think that making "some kind of spirituality" mandatory for group leaders is a good thing?
By Lionel, Mon 7th May 2007 @ 9:27 am
I am interested in the current debate, especially in the US, between the fundamentalists (who assert that not only does spirit exist, but that it is the ultimate good and that the problems of the world can be traced to society's abandoning spirit), and the humanist extremists (who, like Dawkins, argue that not only does spirit not exist, but that it is bad in that the belief in it has caused more wars, tyranny and misery than good).
I do think the Dawkins folk have a point when they deny that religion is necessarily a force for good or the answer to our problems (and I recall, Alaric, you once gave a talk on those lines at your prep school). But I see more resson to believe in spirit's existence.
The existence of spirit, as generally understood, seems to me to require 3 things:
That there can be some interaction between our universe and those outside intelligences.
Clearly a universe can exist, because we live in one. If something can happen once, the minimal expectation is that it would happen more than once - otherwise we have to explain why it could happen once and only once. For example: an explorer lands on an island and sees his first ever pineapple plant, so the natural assumption is that there must be other pineapple plants around somewhere. But if the explorer finds a unique statue, then there has to be an explanation of how it could have been created, and that probably requires a human creator.
I would also expect intelligence and conscious self awareness to exist "out there", because darwinian theory seems to illustrate that these qualities tend to evolve because the have survival value.
The interaction is the problem bit. When i was going to give a talk on this subject i did the sensible thing of telling the spirits that I was going to talk about this and would they be so kindas to provide irrefutable proof of their ability to not only hear me but also interact with our universe in time for my talk. Nothing happened. Are they insufficiently intelligent to get the point? Unlikely, as that would make us the greatest intelligence and that requires a reason why. Or are they too intelligent to accept my offer - can't comment on that! Or did the interaction fail?
Whereas the existence of intelligent spirit is a logical argument, based on likelihood, the interaction bit requires evidence. there is plenty of evidence, but it is not scientific evidence. So all I can say is that there are times in mediatation or quiet acceptance in my life when i do get a feeling of something big and beyond that i can commune with.
Therefore i come down on the side of spirit's existence but, like Alaric, I would never seek to persuade a doubter.
The next bit - is spirit good or bad for us - is a bigger subject.
By ella gale, Fri 11th May 2007 @ 2:51 pm
Hi Al. I think we have some similarities in outlook. I was an agnostic for a while, then atheist (and I like the metaphor of exploring each path). I now believe in something I call God. Science can take you as far as agnosticism and leaves you there with the question of whether there is a God or not unanswerable. So I came to choose to believe there was one based only on the fact that the idea seemed right to me and path seemed more pleasant. I have no idea if this God really exists or if I'm fooling myself, but it seems a nicer worldview than atheism. I also have no idea if this God is a Christian God or just some sort of universe/spirit force. I don't know.
And there is sort of strong anosticism that is to say that you can't know either way, you're not trying to decide, you've decided it's an undecidable question and are happy to not answer it.