<Community Solution Conference, Sept 22-24, Still Time to Register! The Oil Drum Whither Oil Prices?>

230 comments on A Thought for Today: "Losing Faith in Peak Oil's Transformative Power"

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

airdale on September 17, 2006 - 9:37pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
Perhaps someone has already stated this further down the thread. If not then I will here.

Religion and Sprituality are NOT THE SAME.

Religion is a business.

Spirituality can function without religion.

Religion uses 'supposed' spirituality to blind the congregations. Into giving money, their time and ego to the leader.

We have lots of religion. We have almost zero spirituality.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Nick on September 17, 2006 - 11:19pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
Yeah, as I said above, religion has pretty much lost it's spiritual side.  The closest thing most people get to real spiritual prayer seems to be asking for favors.
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Elizaphanian on September 18, 2006 - 1:32am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
"In fact, amongst the chattering classes, spirituality is far more highly regarded than religion, because religion is entangled in the public realm of ritual and behaviour, of institutions and beliefs, a realm in which questions of truth and duty may be raised, whereas the 'spiritual' floats free from fact and calculation and responsibility, massaging in fantasies of feeling the bruised narcissism of well heeled individualists."

Nicholas Lash, in Holiness, Speech and Silence

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Nick on September 18, 2006 - 9:55am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
That sounds good, but what does it really mean?

It sounds like a statement of authoritarian religion: "questions of truth and duty"?  Duty to what? Obey authority?  Obey conservative authority?

Any time someone uses a disrespectful term like "chattering classes", their burden of proof sharply rises.  It's perfectly clear they have a strong bias, so let's see proof.  Well researched statistics that people who talk about spirituality are in fact less responsible.

I have to suspect this writer just doesn't like intellectuals, or "liberals".  He clearly distrusts people who think for themselves, and who aren't content with a simple faith.

A search of his book makes clear that he has no understanding of meditation, or a mysticism in the Christian tradition.  He's a good example of what I was talking about.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Elizaphanian on September 18, 2006 - 10:21am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
The point he is making is that (to violently condense the argument) 'spirituality' (and 'religion') are post-Enlightenment inventions; that 'spirituality' abstracted from a specific religious tradition is not much more than a self-indulgence that meshes perfectly with contemporary capitalist structures; and that the different religious traditions are publicly accountable, not least to the notion of 'truth'.

There is, as you might imagine, rather a lot of argument lying behind that summary paragraph - and this isn't really the context for pursuing it further, although I do happen to believe that theology has an awful lot to say that is relevant to how we react to Peak Oil. Unfortunately most conversations - like this one - are vitiated by disagreements over the most basic terms. It's not an argument that we can just leap into, without a lot of preparatory work to clear the ground. Unfortunately.

By the way, Nicholas Lash is an intellectual himself (recently retired Cambridge Professor), and to claim that he doesn't understand 'mysticism in the Christian tradition' is a remarkably thorough demonstration that you don't know what you're talking about. If you'd like to learn more - in particular, to gain some insight into what Christian mysticism is and teaches - you should read his 'Easter in Ordinary'.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Nick on September 18, 2006 - 12:56pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
Fascinating.  Well, I would like to know a lot more about this.  I have to admit, he provoked me a bit with the disrespectful, apparently conservative tone of that paragraph, and I may have leapt to conclusions based on excerpts I read from that one book.

My basic feeling is that organized religion has lost the ability to use prayer and contemplation to make a real difference in one's life - to dissolve emotional problems, to become stronger emotionally so as to be both more compassionate for other and independent of arbitrary authority.

I see many individuals who seem to have inner strength who are active in religions, but I don't see a good indication that the religions actually foster that strength.  They don't teach techniques of prayer or meditation that really are effective (that's what I'm referring to when I talk about mystical traditions).

What do you think?

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Elizaphanian on September 18, 2006 - 1:50pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
If you send me an e-mail I'll gladly pursue this off-list (the name at hotmail.com). But in a nutshell, I think your point is a good and fair one when applied to much US religion; it's less fair in other cultures and other contexts.
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
mr f on September 18, 2006 - 1:51pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
"Religion" and "spirituality" are the same thing in different guises.

I see religion as more of the "tell me what to do, I'm uncomfortable thinking for myself" ideology... Whereas "spirituality" always arises out of more occult and new-agey paganesque type of systems, usually people leaving the status quo cults. The ex-abrahamic cult followers who then turn to the nicer "spitiuality" and proceed to take yoga classes, etc.

Both are just systems of doctrine with different twists.

Maybe if you define "spirituality" with the "mysteriousness of science" then I'll be down with it. But it seems like you guys are going to route of incense candles and meditation? Who can win the semantic? No, no, my definition is right--each side implores.

As of now, the both of you seem arguing for your own splinter group definitions of that classic logic destroyer "faith", the the purveyors thereof.

Anyway, oil is hardly spiritual, or religious.

"to gain some insight into what Christian mysticism is and teaches"...... No thanks.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Kevembuangga on September 18, 2006 - 2:17pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
"Religion" and "spirituality" are the same thing in different guises.

Are you sure you know what you are talking about?
I am a strict atheist (no gods, no spirits having any kind of "will" or individuality, no supernatural superstitions, no Gaia, etc...), yet I do have spiritual practices without any doctrine.
May be it is just me who have a different definition of spirituality?

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
mr f on September 18, 2006 - 5:34pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
No, I'm not sure I know what I'm talking about.

=]

That is precisely why I joined up in a conversation about "religion" and "spirituality".

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
CreoleGenius on September 18, 2006 - 6:32pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
Kevembuangga practices 'spirituality' without a 'spirit' by Kevembuangga's own words.  That's like practicing sexuality without having a sex, like an amoeba.  A strict atheist would avoid the word 'spirituality' like a chaste Christian avoids using the words 'cunt' or 'cock'.  Kevembuangga is unable to understand the last phrases Kevembuangga employed.  Kevembuangga's bwana taught Kevembuangga not to worship the phallic idols of Kevembuangga's tribe, but Kevembuangga did not listen.
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Kevembuangga on September 19, 2006 - 2:48am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
The meanings of words "wobble" slightly around some common core there is NO incontrovertible definition, language is not mathematics.
Avoid Voodoo Linguistics.

Spirituality isn't a monopoly of religious nutcases, nor are they allowed to define the meaning of words according to their paranoid tales (BIG God is watching you).
They may not pretend to be "masters", THAT'S THE POINT!

See Humpty Dumpty :

`I don't know what you mean by "glory,"' Alice said.

Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. `Of course you don't -- till I tell you. I meant "there's a nice knock-down argument for you!"'

`But "glory" doesn't mean "a nice knock-down argument,"' Alice objected.

`When _I_ use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, `it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less.'

`The question is,' said Alice, `whether you CAN make words mean so many different things.'

`The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, `which is to be master - - that's all.'

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
CreoleGenius on September 19, 2006 - 10:04am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
The meanings of words "wobble" slightly around some common core there is NO incontrovertible definition, language is not mathematics.

`When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, `it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less.'

The first sentence here betrays Kevembuangga's poor, cavalier use of English.
It IS voodoo linguistics, with grammar so deficient that we could ask the questions, "Does Kevembuangga have a high school education?  Is Kevembuannga the product of the American Public Education Ebonics Program?".  Kevembuannga is a masterful butcher of the English tongue.  Kevembuangga is a literary hypocrite who misuses quotes to make Kevembuangga's linguistorelativistic rhetoric seem to be legitimate.  Kevembuangga is really identified here with the MASTER abuser of language, Humpty Dumpty, and not with the spiritual seeker of language clarity, Alice.
When I use the words 'spiritual practices', I know and understand what they mean.  When Kevembuangga uses such words, Kevembuangga can only infer that they mean 'just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less'.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Kevembuangga on September 19, 2006 - 11:26am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
The first sentence here betrays Kevembuangga's poor, cavalier use of English.

If you did understand the "first sentence" please rewrite it to your taste so I can learn from this.

As you claim to be a "genius" take one of the Uncommonly Difficult IQ Tests, say, the Titan Test and please reports the results on TOD, that will give you some "authority" that you seem to be looking for...

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
CreoleGenius on September 19, 2006 - 3:22pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
Year 1960; Stanford Binet = 140
Year 1978; Wechsler Adult = 139

 I am 52 years old and have had to live with myself since I was 6.
Now my wife and children have to live with me, too.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Oil CEO on September 19, 2006 - 7:20pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
Yeah, I wouldn't worry about it. I'm pretty sure Kevem only scored about 500 on Space Invaders.
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
step back on September 20, 2006 - 1:52am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
Of course you beg the question. What happened before you were 6?
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Agric on September 20, 2006 - 10:17pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
Hi Dumbo (sorry, I still score higher than you on IQ tests, 30 or 40+ years on) I'm your age and have lived with myself 6 years longer than you seem to realise you have. Your wife and children do not have to live with you, they could choose otherwise, I'll refrain from further comment being ignorant of the particular circumstances.

What was the relevence of your self confessed inadequacy?

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
CreoleGenius on September 20, 2006 - 11:20pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
The word is spelled 'relevance', Agric.

When I was four and five years old, I spoke of a great many ideas that the others couldn't grok.  My parents sent me to a child psychiatrist for doing that.  The shrink told them that I was too smart for my own good and referred me to a psychologist, who gave me intelligence tests.  I was proclaimed the family genius and was made to pay for being such ever since.  They took me out of parochial school and sent me to a special school where there were 'others like yourself'.  I have since realized that parents need to make up excuses for all the good things they do to their own children, as I have bred two imperfectly adjusted yet perfectly beautiful kids of my own.  In any case, I sometimes wish that I was never gifted with the self-knowledge of my intellectual state.  In order to keep from repeating my successes as a geoscientist, for instance, I become forced by pride to outdo them.  Alas, this striving can make one weary.  As Ecclesiastes laments, "1:17 I applied my heart to know wisdom, and to know madness and folly. I perceived that this also was a chasing after wind. 1:18 For in much wisdom is much grief; and he who increases knowledge increases sorrow.".

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Agric on September 20, 2006 - 11:53pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
It is, well spotted, I have occasional spelling blind spots, thanks.

Thanks, too, for not rising to my taunt, you have some wisdom too, that is good to know and sometimes hard to find in smart folks.

But you ain't that smart, one in a hundred, perhaps one in a couple of hundred, certainly no smarter than one in a thousand. Sad if your intelligence kind of blighted your youth, it sometimes happens.

Good luck with your children, all I can suggest is let them be and become themselves though that is always hard. Sad to hear you are not wise enough to not need pride.

I find little in the Christian and Muslim books to interest me, been thinking that monotheism is perhaps a fundamental (sic) problem. I'm more Pagan (though not really that) than Tao but I find this as enlightening as any:
http://www.thebigview.com/tao-te-ching/

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
step back on September 21, 2006 - 5:12pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
been thinking that monotheism is perhaps a fundamental (sic) problem.

I'm a dumbo next to you genius guys --probably an 80 on the IQ scale.

But as to monotheism being the problem --Doh! It is the worship and cultivation of the reptilian brain. You genius guys should have figured that one out at age 5.3141 if not earlier. :-)

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Kevembuangga on September 21, 2006 - 11:53pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
But as to monotheism being the problem --Doh! It is the worship and cultivation of the reptilian brain.

No.
To emerge, the "father figure" needs the mammalian brain to unify the paranoid fears (reptilian) into a single omnipotent agency.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
step back on September 22, 2006 - 3:54am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
You speak blasphemy.

The Reptilian is Lord of all hosts.
Yee shall have no other before me.
Read your reptilian Ten Commandments.
In all reptilian religions the feminine/mammalian or limbic layer is subjegated to living under a burkah. It is not permissible but to hear one voice, one master. I am not only a paranoid and masculine master but also an angry and jealous one. The one is one. There is no other. There is no daughter. There is no holy spirit. Not three. Just the one. One supreme voice. One leader decider-man. Those who worship the three are an abomination. Those who acknowledge the many are followers of the pig and must face the sword. I am that I am.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Oil CEO on September 22, 2006 - 4:54am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
Damn! That was good. I haven't heard anything like that since that Planet of the Apes movie where they were all worshipping the missiles.

...Oh...yeah...and Zardoz.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
step back on September 22, 2006 - 9:42pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
Two of my favorite movies also ... the old version of Apes, and also Omega Man
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
marxiandialectic on September 18, 2006 - 7:49pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
Religion...the opium haze of disappintment
assuaged......spirituality....the reverential
light of privilege enthralled.
Comments can no longer be added to this story.

230 comments on A Thought for Today: "Losing Faith in Peak Oil's Transformative Power"

Comments can no longer be added to this story.