Are the narrow views of our religions driving kids to drugs?

Spirituality natural? Spirit is by definition immaterial, wheras nature by definition is material. It doesn't make any sense whatsoever to call something spiritual if you don't believe in any higher power(s), as it would all just be futile hallucinations or delusions devoid of meaning.

Derevon, are you so sure that the term, spiritual, can't be applied usefully to some "natural" experiences? If nature is only material, as you say, then thoughts, feelings, intuitions, etc. are not natural. Are you not using "spiritual" as a synomym for "supernatural"? That would explain for me your adamant bifurcation. Can't the term, "mystical" be applied to a natural state of mind in which one realizes one's unity with ultimate reality or "God." The term, religion, suggests this. Re-ligio or re-ligare, refer to being re-connected (ligare = ligament) to the ground of one's being. You may call it Reality, God, godhead, Brahman, Allah, Buddhanature, Tao, whatever, just words.

Well, English isn't my first language, but according to dictionary.com 'spiritual' means:

* Of, relating to, consisting of, or having the nature of spirit; not tangible or material. See Synonyms at immaterial.
* Of, concerned with, or affecting the soul.
* Of, from, or relating to God; deific.
* Of or belonging to a church or religion; sacred.
* Relating to or having the nature of spirits or a spirit; supernatural.

As for 'mystical', it could probably be applied to just about anything that is currently inexplicable to reason or science, but outside a religious/spiritual context, which in essence is about higher realities/purposes/meanings, this kind of experiences have no purpose other than to make the person in question feel good, and as such they would in a sense belong in the same category as drug consumption, which is pretty much about the same thing (escape of the insufficient mundane reality, and about feeling good).

It just doesn't make any sense to me when materialists talk about these things. How can a person who believes in an all-encompassing consciousness believe such a consciousness would be natural? I take it most materialists are Darwinists, only that from a Darwinian point of view consciousness doesn't make any sense at all, let alone a 'cosmic consciousness'. In my opinion, the step from embracing the existence of such a consciousness to accepting a higher reality than the natural should be a very small and logical step indeed.

No scientist on this planet has even the slightest inkling about how the consciousness really works or what it actually is (other than mere speculation). How could a bunch of molecules put together possibly be self-aware? To me it just doesn't make any sense at all to see self-awareness as something natural. If such a thing were possible, then it should also be possible, for example, to write a self-aware computer program, which it of course isn't, and never will be.

Re: Are the narrow views of our religions driving kids to dr


Are you on some kind of drug now?

This is exactly what puts me in awe of nature. How wonderfully unlikely it all is, but here it is, and here we are to enjoy it. The ultimate mystery of it all will always remain so. Yes, I also enjoy learning about how nature functions, but every now and then you have to step back and look and just say, wow!

Thanks, JL. The clarity of mind expressed in your writing is always refreshing. I also think it is not necessary to resort to a supernatural to be spiritual. Campbell says that the highest spiritual fulfillment is a blooming, a perfume of nature. "Nature intends the grail."

Re: Are the narrow views of our religions driving kids to dr


Thanks, Intrepid. I'm sure you mean that in the most positive sense. By the way, I like your avatar. I've always liked the Canadian flag because it is one of the few flags with a natural object—maple leaf—on it.

No, I haven't done drugs for over 30 years, though there may be some lingering aftereffects.

I think it's a shame that so many churches can't get past literalism, expecially in our modern age when the myths and symbols become absurd when taken literally. It is one reason that so many young people discard spirituality totally and look elsewhere for meaning in life. This "my way or go to hell" attitude of many churches is not spiritual in my opinion and only drives young people away.

Derevon, as a radical monist I see most of our dichotomies as false and invented. Some analytical distinctions are useful, i.e., they serve limited functions, but must not be reilfied as actual. Your statement that

"No scientist on this planet has even the slightest inkling about how the consciousness really works or what it actually is (other than mere speculation). How could a bunch of molecules put together possibly be self-aware? To me it just doesn't make any sense at all to see self-awareness as something natural."

rests on a dichtomy between mind and matter, with a materialist bias toward the ontological reality of matter. You imply that mind (consciousness) cannot derive from mere molecules--or, at least, that we cannot possibly understand/explain the connections. I agree that put that way we have a MATERIALISTIC MYSTERY. But if we reverse the causal arrow, going from mind to matter, if we take the mentalist perspective and "realize" that the notion of "molecules" is itself only a thought, an activity of mind (which is, from the monistic perspective, no more accurate than the materialist position), then we are left with a MENTALIST MYSTERY. But in both cases your "mystery" aspect supports neither the case for materialism nor mentalism.

There is always a mystery, monism or not, materialism or not, spirituality or not. That is one of few things we can be certain of.

So true, Derevon.

Re: Are the narrow views of our religions driving kids to dr


Well, I did type that tongue in cheek :-)

I guess it depends on your personal experiences with churches and religion. I can only go by my own experiences and my own church. Our young people are not driven to drug use and are not hit over the head with bible thumping. I have heard that more bibles have been worn out by thumping, than by reading. :-D I suppose there are some churches that have not come into the 20th century, let alone the 21st century. The doctrine of the church should not change, but we can't remain in the dark ages when all around us is changing.

I don't think that is the church's fault.

(Which church are you talking about anyway?)

Catholic, Protestant (which denomintation)?, Hindu, Buddhist?, Tibetan Buddhist?

There are some "Churches" which could fulfill the path that Joseph Campbell speaks of. Just because 1 or 20 churches don't meet a young person's needs doesn't mean they need to necessarily take drugs (though yes its understandable they might do this as an experiment).

The longer term and better answer I believe, is for the young seeker to seek out the religions and paths which help them achieve these mystical states without drugs (Tibetan Buddhism, Hinduism, and yes some Christian sects).

Joseph Campbell was a great teacher. He understood that many cultures and many religions had kernels of great wisdom and truth.

One thing I appreciated about him is he tended to be inclusive. He didn't usually say, for example: "Christianty=Bad, This Other Path=Good."

Instead, he would do things like take the core teachings of Hinduism, Buddhism, Animism, Early & Mystical Christianity, see what they have in common, and weave them into a meaningful path where all can be included and we can walk separately toward the goal, likes spokes on a wheel.

This is what I like about the Hindus: You can go into one of their temples and see a picture of Jesus next to a statue of Buddha, next to a Krishna statue. But its a Hindu Temple! You ask the attendant about it, and he says "Yes, we don't see a problem with this. There is no conflict. They were all holy beings. They all help us on the Way."

This may be blasphemy, but: Not everything about all Church is completely wrong, just because it happens to be Church.

"One thing I appreciated about him is he tended to be inclusive. He didn't usually say, for example: "Christianty=Bad, This Other Path=Good."

Instead, he would do things like take the core teachings of Hinduism, Buddhism, Animism, Early & Mystical Christianity, see what they have in common, and weave them into a meaningful path where all can be included and we can walk separately toward the goal, likes spokes on a wheel.

This is what I like about the Hindus: You can go into one of their temples and see a picture of Jesus next to a statue of Buddha, next to a Krishna statue. But its a Hindu Temple! You ask the attendant about it, and he says "Yes, we don't see a problem with this. There is no conflict. They were all holy beings. They all help us on the Way"

You asked in another thread what, if anything, we had learned at A2K. I didn't know this about Hinduism. What a novel and ultimately sensible approach. It helps explain what purpose religion could ideally serve in our societies and in our world. Thanks Extra Medium.