jonnyb

Enjoy this nice spell, Paul. My kids seem to be fighting much less at the minute, too - must be something in the air! Jonny

just interested on your thoughts on this... I am someone who currently feels that no religion has solid knowledge of 'God' - what he is or what he does. Lately I have been interested in the worlds of science, nature, philosophy, psychology etc etc and in these areas I find great wonder and awe, a kind of 'spirituality'. But these are mostly things that are 'palpable', ie the are observable in the real world. This is leading me to think that spirituality (or perhaps just my spirituality) is in seeing the wonder of the 'ordinary'. Taking the everyday, ordinary things around us for granted is of course not spiritual, but pausing to really consider those things (eg the intricate construction of a leaf, the scale of the universe etc etc) is when the mundane becomes spiritual. Also, i feel that considering these things make one consider the forces behind everything - what are they and why are they there? I suppose this is the part of my spirituality that involves the 'unseen'. sorry if this is rambling, but i'm just thinking out loud! I'd just like to hear what it means for you to be 'spiritual' if you have no solid beliefs about god, afterlife etc thanks Jonny

cruelty to animals is of course unacceptable. But i am not against eating animals, because of how i see the world works: every animal does what is necessary to survive, for many creatures that means eating other creatures. it is an unpleasant fact of nature but it is a fact. We find ourselves, luckily, at the top of the food chain. For many of us we are also lucky enough to be removed from that process - buying our meat in little packets and being spared the violence. But i do feel that our detachment from this process has given us a very casual attitude towards killing for food. I think it's interesting that some of the earliest depictions of religion (on cave paintings) are of ceremonies regarding the killing of animals. Early man seemed to be aware of the seriousness of taking life, although it was necessary for survival. Maybe we need to put some contemplation back into the fact that we eat animals - maybe some kind of 'grace' before we eat? maybe some of the revelry needs to be taken out of eating meat. Certainly, the amount of meat we eat is an issue that needs to be addressed. Anyway, sorry if i've gone off the point, but theses are just some things i've been thinking about lately! Jonny

i liked your post, XianAnarchist, you seem to have described me quite precisely! I attend a traditional church, due to family commitment, but otherwise I don't think I would be interested in joining a more progressive church. Although that could change as I am still on this 'spiritual journey' and don't know where i will arrive next. traditionally, a church is united on their own interpretation of the bible, but when one becomes of the mindset that you are free to interpret it as you like and, indeed, ignore as much of it as you want, then there isn't the same desire to go and listen to the interpretations of others (for me anyway). at the minute my exploration into the spiritual is personal and i can't see that changing in the near future. As you say, there is much to be found on the internet and i have gained much from interviews, books, message boards etc etc. I think, if human interaction regarding spirituality is required, it is good to come to a place like this and discuss your own interpretation, rather than sit in a congregation and listen to someone else's. Jonny

welcome, and thanks for sharing 'Integral christianity' - i will check it out. Jonny

definitley one to see, Joseph - and see it in 3D! i wasn't convinced about 3D but this movie has won me over! Jonny

**SPOILER** - DON'T READ THIS IS YOU HAVEN'T SEEN THE MOVIE/BOOK Hi, I went to see life of Pi in 3D last week, and I have to say it was the best cinematic experience I have had so far. The ending gave much to think about, and I'd love to know what others thought about it. Anyway, here is my simplistic take: The 'human' story was the real one, and the 'animal' story was a more bearable version to help Pi cope with the harsh reality. Even the writer and the interviewers at the end chose to accept the animal story. 'And so it is with God,' says Pi, indicating that religion/faith is a story that we chose to believe in because it makes the trials of life more bearable. Pi was a follower of 3 different religions so would have known that each of them could not be true, but he made a choice to commit to them because faith in itself was of some benefit to him. The tiger represented Pi's 'animal' side, which came out when he killed the cook. He spent the rest of the journey, perhaps, being 'tamed' - by God? One thing i'm thinking about is him mentioning the good lessons his father taught him. the lessons i can think of were - showing him the reality of the tiger's nature, that it is a killer and any soul he sees in its eyes is a reflection of himself (i'll have to think about this some more - and perhaps there is a connection with the tiger not looking back at him at the end). the other lesson would be to use reason in life, and his father's negative attitude to religion. but if this was an important lesson - why did Pi choose the faith route? Anyway, hope a few people have seen it and would like to comment! Jonny

thanks Ron, and George!

hi i was looking at Bart Ehrman books today and was wandering which one to start on - you would recommend the one you mention above? I'd prefer something fairly easy to get into for the theology newbie, and something relatively short as my reading opportunities are few and far between! the book i will recommend is one i've just finished and which we've been discussing here - Jonathan Haidt - the Righteous mind - why good people are divided by politics and religion Jonny

a good listen, thanks. it was interesting to me that although he seems to have shed his belief in biblical inerrancy, he still has a lot of the old evangelical-type traits, for example, the belief that God has given him this message to share with the world.

i was checking out a book called 'the bible made impossible' by christian smith. i havent read it, but his premise is that religious people (of which he seems to be one) need to shed 'biblicism' ie the belief that the bible is the ultimate authority and infallible, as the bible cant live up to this expectation, and the result is thousands of different interpretations - each believing they are ultimate truth. i suppose this is similar to the themes of spong etc.

As far a the shepherds go, i've always heard that it was to show that Jesus is for all, regardless of status - as in your point no 2 - as shepherds were then considered the lowest in society. Jonny

that's true, Annie, my main interest is the arts, with a passing interest in science. Those worlds are generally secular, which i would say has had some influence on me.

i saw this book in my local library yesterday: http://www.amazon.co.uk/The-Believing-Brain-Spiritual-Convictions/dp/1780335296/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1354181006&sr=8-1 It looks to address some of the same issues as 'the righteous mind' - "beliefs come first and explanations for beliefs follow" What interests me about it is that it addresses the 'extinguishing' of beliefs. That was one thing that Haidt's book made me wonder - if we seek only to reinforce our belief, how come many of us have stopped believing in things we once did? Think i'll give that one a read next. Jonny

This book has been quite eye-opening for me and I can think of lots of examples of these theories with myself and with others. So far he has looked a lot at reasoning, and I am interested in finding out what he has to say about the intuition side of it.

This is the last chapter in Part One, and is a summing up of Haidt's 'first principle of moral psychology' - Intuitions come first, strategic reasoning second He looks in more detail at the implications of this principle, and states that, 'Our moral thinking is more like a politician searching for votes than a scientist searching for truth.' He makes five points, backed up by research: 1. We do care about what others think of us, even if we think we don't. Our reasoning is less for our own benefit, and more to convince others of our stance. 2. Our reasoning will do anything it can to justify our original judgement 3. Most of us will be a little dishonest if we think no-one will find out, and our reasoning is excellent at finding justifications for such acts. 4. Given a bit of ambiguity, we will see what we want to see. We will see the flaws in something we don't want to believe in, and justify the flaws in something we do believe in. 5. We can believe almost anything that supports our 'team'. When it comes to political voting, people tend to look for their group's best interest (racial, religious, regional etc) rather than their own interest. Finally, Haidt again talks about 'the rationalist delusion', and claims that reason shouldn't be held in the high esteem that it currently is. He says, though, that this doesn't mean that we should always go by our gut feeling - in law, science etc that could be disastrous. He says that many people reasoning together is the best way to get to truth, as our reasoned arguments can disconfirm the claims of others. In such a situation it is important that there is intellectual and ideological diversity within a group. Interestingly, Haidt admits that the above process must be applied to his own work, and the truth will emerge when counter-arguments arise from those who disagree with him. Jonny

hi, just to let folks know that i will be starting the chapter 4 thread on monday Jonny

i would say the same - i dont know enough about the subject to disagree. A lot of what he says rings true to me, when i think of real life examples, my own experiences. I recognise myself (and others) when he says 'We are terrible at seeking evidence that challenges our own beliefs.' this certainly indicates that the mind has already been made up intuitively, and the reasoning only serves to support this decision. Jonny

sorry, posted on the wrong thread!

with you on the navigation, George. i like to know how long i have until the next chapter

sorry for going off topic, but, Annie, are you familiar with 'flight of the conchords'? this made me think immediately of the episode they met the (fictional i presume) NZ prime minister 'Brian'. just like something he would have come out with! Jonny ps i'm gettiing through chapter 3 and will comment in due course!

hi tariki, like you, i always have loved the experience of a new book, and never thought i would enjoy an ereader - but i absolutely love my kindle! very transportable, plus if you have a couple of books on the go you can easily switch between them. also i like how people cant see what you are reading! only down side for me is that it's oh-so-easy and tempting to buy new books with one click. if you have any recommendations from those cheaper ones i'd like to hear them! Jonny

i liked when he asked the subjects to sign away their souls to the interviewer. I'm not sure if I would sign that piece of paper. i dont for a second believe that i would be actually signing my soul away, but i think i would certainly break a sweat if i was going to do it. what do you all think you would do?

i like that, Norm. good post