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

[pavlos.livejournal.com]

I think what I propose is a compromise because both sides get an agreeable psychological environment in which to enjoy their beliefs, and that is achieved without installing any huge barriers around large areas of discourse. Before the compromise, things look like this:

• Believer: I am certain that God exists. This conviction makes me feel good. These horrible atheists are constantly arguing that it doesn't and insult me with "evidence". This is extremely offensive. Why do they think they know, and why do they insist on trying to demolish my conviction?
• Atheist: Everything around us suggests that god is a myth. These stupid believers are not only deluded, they are dangerous! They cannot distingush the myth from fact and sometimes attempt to force others to subscribe to the myth, or make ruinous policies based on the myth e.g. anti-contraception.

After the suggested compromise, it looks like this:

• Believer: I will go to church, worship the beutiful teachings of Christ, and feel spiritually strong and secure. Actually I know at a certain rational level that this is a psychological construct, but so what? It works loudly and clearly. I know that it would be foolish to try and make public policy or discuss the material world in this context. Atheists agree. They respect my spirituality and we get along very well.
• Atheist: I feel liberated to live in a world that is not oppressed by myths. I too feel the need to engage in rituals sometimes, but much less frequently than the believers. I respect that their need for spirituality is stronger, and understand it would be grossly impolite to try and undermine their myths. I support the myths as valuable social constructs. I feel safe doing this because I know that all of us in fact agree to organize material things on rational grounds.

So it is definitely a compromise, at least at the psychological level. It is capitulation to rationalism at a logical level, but since when was logic the deciding factor in religious matters? I strongly believe (another personal opinion) that religious people are religious for psychological reasons and not for logical ones. In other words they are religious because it feels good or "right" and definitely not as a result of some rational analysis of observed facts. Rationalizing, they do, but not reasoning.

Admittedly, my compromise is much less realistic than the "we agree to differ" stalemate proposed earlier by David. My compromise has the advantage that useful and respectful discussion can progress on any aspect of life, and public policy can be arranged that accommodates everyone's preferences incuding the accommodation that some people need to be more surrounded by spirituality and some less.

I agree that we generally agree. Especially, I agree that I ascribe everyone with an extremely high ability of rational reflection into their own beliefs. That is why I think (reaffirming the first personal belief) that this compromise is unrealistic, not because my model of why people believe in god is inaccurate.

Pavlos

Re: I doubt it

[feanelwa.livejournal.com]

That's not two sets of people then, really, because they both believe the same as you do now! The whole point is that the religious people *wouldn't* agree to it because they really do put credence in the religion, and to them it really isn't just a set of rituals.

I don't consider David's proposition ot be a stalemate at all. I know lots of people who are religious, but we get on just fine. We have discussions about stuff like the nature of reality, and we don't end up shouting at each other at all. Most of them don't find their religion in conflict with logical thought, they're engineers and physicists and things and slot the two bits of life together perfectly.

Re: I doubt it

[pavlos.livejournal.com]

Hmmm... Then we have three theories that explain the behaviour of someone who claims to believe in god:

1. Interventionist Believer: This person really believes that there is a vaguely anthropomorphic God who actually runs the universe. They believe prayer and worship may help their material chances when they are in need. They believe that being ethical, leading a good life, etc. are important in getting you to heaven rather than hell. To the extent that they look after themselves in the material world it is because the Lord wants them to do that, rather than expect everything from him.
2. Non-interventionist Believer: This person believes that the material world functions rationally to the limits of our current senses, and takes care of their material needs on this basis. At the same time, they truly believe there is an abstract deity, who can perhaps be perceived, or who can perceive them, but who isn't at all likely to save them from drowning, send them to hell, etc. This deity is non-interventionist, and is compatible with both rationalism and agnosticism.
3. Dishonest Escapist: This person holds a rather inconsistent set of beliefs. At one level, and especially when in need, they believe there is a powerful antropomorphic deity who would listen to them when they pray, and who is in fact likely to keep them out of the worst of the harm. At another level, they can't fail to see that if they really want to get out of the crisis they'd better do it themselves - with, ummm..., God's help of course. They are equally selective when it comes to ethics, sometimes putting weight in the thought of heaven and sometimes ignoiring the idea of hell. Understandably, they don't like to dwell on the issue of how of how religion interacts with materialism.

Now, my own personal intuition, which I can't in any way prove, is that most present-day believers are of type 3. Type 1 might have been the majority in the Middle Ages, or in a present-day animist culture, but I personally think it is untenable in our Western societies. It would require a remarkable degree of faith, and the overall ethical conduct of religious people does not support this theory. Type 2 is perfectly compatible with our society and it may indeed be the case that many religious people are of this type, as firewoman seems to be suggesting. Personally I doubt it, simply because it involves a high degree of intellectual clarity (like my notion of a "compromise").

I simply think (again personal opinion) that type 3 is a much more likely explanation of religious behaviour because it is much less intellectually demanding (less faith and less consistency required) and seems to agree with the observation that religious people appear to mix actions that rely on an interventionist god with actions that ignore it as it suits their interests and psychological condition. Now, if these people were like our two friends in Amsterdam, they could admit the inconsistency and keep the spiritual/psychological benefits of their "belief" in god, while acknowledging that it's really in their minds and the world behaves materially. They could thus accept my compromise. I do think that most religious people are type 3, but not that they are like Paul and Alison, which I wish they were for more reasons than this!

Pavlos