Magick for materialists

[ciphergoth]

(This is something purplerabbits and myself have thought for a long time, and I just got to writing up in an LJ comment. Copying it here with minor edits 'cos I'm interested to know what people think.)

I think I'm generally acknowledged to be a total screaming materialist and skeptic about magick, superstition, gods and so forth, and as such I'm not sure I see a reason why you shouldn't do a ritual to change the way you feel about something, if you think it might work.

It's not necessarily a step in the question of believing in all that - it's a willing suspension of disbelief, in order to do things to your head from a sideways angle that aren't always easy to do head-on. Our heads are full of irrational things, some of them undesirable, and you can't always make them stop doing their nasty work by saying "stop that, it's irrational!". You can use ritual and suspension of disbelief to turn them into something you can visualise, something tangible, and you can address them on their own territory.

The liberating thing about this, of course, is that you needn't invoke Innana, or Ganesh, if you don't want to - if it will work better, you can invoke John Lennon or Santa Claus.

When Alison and I decided to stop dithering and commit to running BiCon 2002, we did a ritual to mark the occasion - she found two blue smarties and two red ones, and we solemnly ate the red pills together...

Comments

Re: I doubt it

[ruis.livejournal.com]

The message that I wish to get through to religious people is this: Look, it's an illusion. Both you and I know this.

When the rationalists can scientifically prove that a religion is purely an illusion then they can tell everyone to agree with them or label them as being deluded. Until that point they are acting in exactly the same way as the other fundamentalists who try and convert people to save them.

Now, if the religious people really had a strong ability to use faith, they would be quite comfortable with this compromise, as are Alison and Paul.

If being a rationalist is a matter of faith and not knowledge I can't see how it differs from any other religion. Which possibly explains why I have never had a strong enough faith to become an atheist.

Re: I doubt it

[pavlos.livejournal.com]

I am making the controversial point that religious people are in fact quite rational but intellectually dishonest. They can see that god almost certainly does not exist, but are refusing to think about or discuss that matter. I'm trying to say, look, you can own up to the illusion and it'll still work, honest! We'll even role-play to help you if you do own up. Yes, I am partly trying to save them, and also to reduce conflict between believers and atheists.

I'm not saying anything about rationalism being a matter of faith. I'm saying that if people have a well-developed capacity to use faith, as in suspension of disbelief, they can engage in spiritual activities in a controlled way, like Alison and Paul, and still get some benefit. I am ridiculing the religious people by saying: your faith is weak, it requires constant maintenance of the illusion in order to work.

Pavlos

Re: I doubt it

[adjectivemarcus.livejournal.com]

They can see that god almost certainly does not exist

This is starting to remind me of a discussion I had with sgloomi on the nature of humour. His contention was that no-one actually thinks Jim Davidson is funny, they're all laughing at him out of contempt and post modern irony. My position was that no, they do think he's funny - and it doesn't matter how many times he stated that JD wasn't funny, such things are not binary. The most that could be said was "I don't find XYZ funny", but he was clinging to a belief that he could lay down "XYZ isn't funny, period."

Anyway. No. Many of them can quite clearly see that God very much exists. Whether this makes them rational/irrational honest/dishonest is a different thing.

Re: I doubt it

[djm4]

I am making the controversial point that religious people are in fact quite rational but intellectually dishonest.

You are making the 'controversial' assertion that religious people are in your experience/opinion/dreams quite rational but intellectually dishonest.

You appear to be psychic to the extent that you know how millions of people you've never met think. You're even prepared to tell people who claim to think a certain way that actually they don't. I wish I had your powers of vision, but unfortunately, I don't myself believe in psychics, so as a rationalist I regretfully have to regard you as deluded.

Re: I doubt it

[pavlos.livejournal.com]

All of what you say is true. I am making a controversial assertion based on personal opinion that isn't and couldn't possibly be founded. In terms of rational validity this is as good as any standpoint in religious debate, since each side basically inhabits its own solipsistic island. I could very well be deluded, i.e. it could be the case that most religious people are very honest and truly believe. Neither possiblity could be established by measurement, since the behaviour of "true believer" and "disonest escapist" are identical to the current limits of our senses.

The reason that I think there is any point talking about this is that I'm hoping to strike a chord in the minds of firstly you, the readers, whom I mostly expect to be atheist, and secondly anyone who might be religious in the way that I describe. In other words you might think "Aha, well said! I too have the same gut feeling as Pavlos. I will see if I can use this sort of theory in the future, either to convince someone or to help me interpret someone's actions". Or I may meet a slightly religious person who would be prepared to admit in private "Yeah, well, I don't believe it literally but I find it uplifting to try to believe it as much as possible".

My use of the word "dishonest" seems to be a bit abrasive. Well, there you go. The alternatives are "right", "different", or "deluded". I'm not sure that "deluded", which would be my personal interpretation of believing in god, is much more flattering. I can point to much self-serving behaviour that's contrary to the teachings of major religions to think that "dishonest" may have a place in describing their followers. Apologies to everyone who isn't.

Pavlos

Re: I doubt it

[ex-meta.livejournal.com]

I am making the controversial point that religious people are in fact quite rational but intellectually dishonest. They can see that god almost certainly does not exist, but are refusing to think about or discuss that matter.

So how do you respond to religious people who say "Look, you can quite obviously see the evidence all around that God must exist--you just want to pretend he doesn't, so that you can go on living an immoral and hedonistic life"?

Re: I doubt it

[pavlos.livejournal.com]

Their point is equally valid. I am hoping to convince borderline religious people of the "dishonest escapist" type, who might perhaps see and own up to their dishonest beliefs if directly confronted with them. Equally, the argument that you set out could convince a person who is feeling religious but denying it to own up and identify as religious.

We can, if you like, launch into a large discussion as to which of the two is most likely, or why I personally think the "dishonest escapist" theory is a more likely explanation of people's religious behaviour than the "true believer" theory. Since information is very sketchy, I don't think we can each do much more than state our intuitive opinions at this stage.

Incidentally, I don't see the corelation between religion and morality, so I don't get the second part of the argument. It would suffice to say "You know that God exists but you are denying it because you currently identify as atheist".

Pavlos

Re: I doubt it

[feanelwa.livejournal.com]

I think we should burn them all. (jk)
I really need a new user icon...