Is Religion Egoistic?

[aric]

The thread I started about Pat Robertson denying - oops! I mean Pat Robertson saying God would deny help to Dover, Pennsylvania residents in a disaster situation solely because they rejected the school board members who supported ID... That thread has gotten me thinking about something that I've been kicking around in my head for a couple of years now. The question is:

Are religious people fundamentally egoistic?

Now, I'm not talking about selfishness here. I'm talking about how they think about God and their relationship with him. I think it's fair to say that many Christians, especially the ones of the evangelical fundamentalist variety, believe in Providence. That is to say, they believe God hears their prayers and possibly tailors his actions based on those prayers. In other words, they believe that God can intercede on behalf of an individual if it is so requested.

Now IMNSHO, there are other things that support the notion that religion, especially ones based on the Abrahamic God, is egoistic. However, let's start with the Providence angle. Now, in a world with six billion people, over one billion of which are Christians, a person in Mississippi can believe that God pays special attention to him. Nevermind that he also believes God pays special attention to anyone who believes in Him. I want to concentrate on that one person in Mississippi. Now, in a universe that is over 140 TRILLION light years across and getting bigger every second, with a near infinite amount of things happening at any one time, this guy in Mississippi thinks that God will take the time out of his busy schedule to listen to this guy's prayers.

Now, let's put aside the notion that God is allegedly omnipotent (an idea that has some flaws). Let's look at the believer. Is it egoistic for that guy to think that he is special for whatever reason in the eyes of God? That an allegedly omnipotent being would potentially bend the course of the universe to answer a single prayer?

I want to say more, but I need more feedback in order to construct a more meaningful idea about religious egoism.

Any takers?

- Aric

[RedFeather]

I would not say that all religious people are that way, just that many are. It is a personal belief of mine that the people who are like that just end up wrongly representing their religion, and make it out to be worse than it actually is. And I'm sure that the good, honest people in each religion get seriously pissed off about it.

Just because some people like to play God and act like he's punishing places like that doesn't mean that all people of that religion are like that.

It's also my belief that God (or whichever diety one believes in) would not destroy a whole city based on the idea that it is evil. He might punish individuals (at least, in the views of these religions), but I don't think that a diety who deserves to be a diety would destroy a whole city because a lot of people in it are bad. There are good people in those cities, too, even if the bad outnumber the good. And it would not be right to make those people suffer, too, for being good people, just because a lot of the people around them are bad. So I never really saw that as a realistic explanation, anyway.

I also don't have a problem with believing that you're a special person in the eyes of whatever God or diety you choose to believe in. It's just that some people take this idea the wrong way and start thinking that they are better than everyone else. Just because one is special, unique and good does not mean there are aren't other special, unique and good people out there.

There's nothing wrong with considering yourself special, because everyone is special. But in considering yourself special, always remember that everyone else is just as special as you are, even if for different reasons, and don't think of them as being any lower than you are, because that is one of the lowest attitudes of all.

[Barry]

I kinda agree with Minstelae here.
Sounds a lot like the story of Abraham and
Lot in the Bible. ;D

Run Fast, Seek Peace, Fly High like a Dragon…

[aric]

minstelae said:

I would not say that all religious people are that way, just that many are. It is a personal belief of mine that the people who are like that just end up wrongly representing their religion, and make it out to be worse than it actually is. And I'm sure that the good, honest people in each religion get seriously pissed off about it.

True, but don't honest theists also believe in some similar things, albeit on a more tame level? I'm talking about the principle, not the degree to which people carry it out. Back when I had that crush on Jessica Simpson, I was watching a bio of her on VH1. Now, all laughing and ridicule of me aside, I did see something interesting. The story goes that when she was at some Christian camp, she had this "experience" with God where she thought that God was centering his attention on beautiful Jessica (who wouldn't?). Now, this is what I'm curious about. As far as I can tell, Jessica Simpson isn't a raving fundamentalist like Pat Robertson. And yet, doesn't it seem the least bit egoistic that she would think that of the dozens of people there, God would go out of his way to favor her? Doesn't this seem to be a little self-centered?

minstelae said:

Just because some people like to play God and act like he's punishing places like that doesn't mean that all people of that religion are like that.

Pat Robertson is just more bald-faced and crazy in that respect. However, when people read supernatural or divine things into events or occurances that happen to them, is there not the possibility that they too, like old Pat, are making God do what they desire? What their egos read intio the situation?

minstelae said:

It's also my belief that God (or whichever diety one believes in) would not destroy a whole city based on the idea that it is evil.

But what about changing the movements of the clouds so that beams of light will shine on just you? Or putting a rock over the course of a long period of geological time so that it might one day deflect he bullet that would otherwise have hit your mother's head? Or anything else where people think divine intervention happened?

I'm not talking about just things that seem to be bad. I'm talking about ALL incidences of Providence.

minstelae said:

He might punish individuals (at least, in the views of these religions), but I don't think that a diety who deserves to be a diety would destroy a whole city because a lot of people in it are bad. There are good people in those cities, too, even if the bad outnumber the good. And it would not be right to make those people suffer, too, for being good people, just because a lot of the people around them are bad. So I never really saw that as a realistic explanation, anyway.

Tell that to Sodom and Gamorrah. IIRC, the entire populaces were wiped out. Including the babies and children.

Or what about the first born in Egypt during the reign of Rameses II?

In any case, why do you think that? Is this from any empirical evidence? Or is this because of what you think a God or gods should be?

Remember, I'm talking about ego here.

minstelae said:

I also don't have a problem with believing that you're a special person in the eyes of whatever God or diety you choose to believe in. It's just that some people take this idea the wrong way and start thinking that they are better than everyone else. Just because one is special, unique and good does not mean there are aren't other special, unique and good people out there.

See, that's what I'm talking about. It's not about taking things the "wrong way," what ever that is. It's about thinking that you're special because some deity thinks so in the first place. What warrants this assertion? Is it something we can place outside of human ego and thought?

What I'm saying is that people seem to create their idea of God to conform to their own egos. What they think God should be and should do.

minstelae said:

There's nothing wrong with considering yourself special, because everyone is special. But in considering yourself special, always remember that everyone else is just as special as you are, even if for different reasons, and don't think of them as being any lower than you are, because that is one of the lowest attitudes of all.

I don't dispute that. It's how people justify that assertion that they're special. Is it because they know that there isn't another individual like them in the entire universe? Or is it because they think God favors them in some way? Do they use God to glorify themselves? Do they use God to give themselves and the events they see around them meaning that is particular to them?

- Aric

[RedFeather]

True, but don't honest theists also believe in some similar things, albeit on a more tame level? I'm talking about the principle, not the degree to which people carry it out. Back when I had that crush on Jessica Simpson, I was watching a bio of her on VH1. Now, all laughing and ridicule of me aside, I did see something interesting. The story goes that when she was at some Christian camp, she had this "experience" with God where she thought that God was centering his attention on beautiful Jessica (who wouldn't?). Now, this is what I'm curious about. As far as I can tell, Jessica Simpson isn't a raving fundamentalist like Pat Robertson. And yet, doesn't it seem the least bit egoistic that she would think that of the dozens of people there, God would go out of his way to favor her? Doesn't this seem to be a little self-centered?

That is egotistical. Because if she had really received some sort of spiritual revelation, she would have probably either not told anyone about it, or only would have told close friends. Also... who's to say that the other people at that camp didn't experience diety in some other ways than she did, and didn't tell anyone about it? Spiritual occurances are very personal, and it pays to be careful about who they're shared with. I'd say that a person who is careful about who they share it with is probably telling the truth, and some person who is willing to tell the whole nation about it with no regard whatsoever, is perhaps doing it for egotistic reasons.

People do experience things of spiritual natures. And just because their deity seems to help them out or teaches them lessons, doesn't mean they are stuck on themselves. Just that people who go into this thing about how holy and special they are and how everyone had better listen to them because those are the words of God... are just saying it for egotistical reasons.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying that anyone who talks about a spiritual occurrence is stuck on themselves - just that those who don't think carefully about who they tell about it and what the reactions are, and seems to be glorifying themself, probably has a problem.

Pat Robertson is just more bald-faced and crazy in that respect. However, when people read supernatural or divine things into events or occurances that happen to them, is there not the possibility that they too, like old Pat, are making God do what they desire? What their egos read intio the situation?

It's a possibility, and it does happen with many people. But just because it happens with many, does not mean it happens with all. I've had those moments, too. But the difference between the two, the distinguishing factor is, again... does the person seem to be glorifying themself, or are they trying to help? For instance... is their "revelation" concerned with making themself seem special in the eyes of God... is it all like "Ooooh, yes, God told me this, and I'm a very special person and I will lead a great army one day and thousands will honor me..." or is it more like "God told me I should be more helpful to others and stop to think about what I say to them, so that I don't hurt them? God is telling me to work with my relationships with others, and that perhaps I'm not currently treating them right." The latter would more likely be true. Not every spiritual revelation is something that the person wants to hear - and very often, they tell you things that you could do to improve yourself and your relationship to people, animals, the planet, etc. For instance, if you have an anger problem, then your diety is more likely to be telling you that you need to work on that, rather than that you are a great person who will be honored and revered.

But what about changing the movements of the clouds so that beams of light will shine on just you? Or putting a rock over the course of a long period of geological time so that it might one day deflect he bullet that would otherwise have hit your mother's head? Or anything else where people think divine intervention happened?

I'm not talking about just things that seem to be bad. I'm talking about ALL incidences of Providence.

Now, if you think the clouds moved for you to say "Oooh, aah, that's the greatest person on Earth," you're full of crap. If the clouds do that and they point something out to you that you were looking for, or you see something in the clouds that holds meaning to you, that can definitely be positive. Whether or not it actually is divine intervention isn't the issue. The fact of the matter is that you see it as such, and you feel like someone's looking out for you, helping you or teaching you, causes many otherwise very lonely people to feel that they mean something to the universe - that they are not forgotten. If the person reads that to mean that they are better than everyone, then they take it the wrong way. If they read it as some way to better themselves, or to help someone or something and not to even think about self-glorification, then they take it the right way.

Sometimes I get ideas in which I can help others without them finding out about it. Like I might leave a small amount of money laying around or put it in a place that it will be found, but that the person won't know where it came from and will take it. I don't do this all the time, but in situations where a person I care about deeply needs money for something, like gas, or another necessity, occasionally I will do this. Or I might offer a word of encouragement to someone. And I'm just doing these things because it feels good to help people, no matter how minor it is, and I don't go around telling anyone about it. The fact that I know I did it makes me feel good that I have helped someone, but I don't really want the excessive "thank you, thank you, thank you..." or anything like that. I'd just rather not be noticed.

Tell that to Sodom and Gamorrah. IIRC, the entire populaces were wiped out. Including the babies and children.

Or what about the first born in Egypt during the reign of Rameses II?

Perhaps they were. But it was a person's interpretation of that as a punishment for being evil. I never once denied that bad things happened to people who don't deserve it. They do all the time. Just that in every case, they are not God punishing you. Sometimes they are meant to be learning experiences, and at other times, they are just caused by some natural disaster or freak accident that was bound to happen anyway, and give no regard to who it hurt or killed. But I feel that perhaps people writing the Bible did the same thing that many people do today - assumed it was God punishing them and writing it down as such. I am not saying the Bible is not true, and although I do not follow Christianity, I do believe that some of those things happened back then. However, even though there is the possibility someone may have had spiritual revelations in writing it, the people writing "God's Word" down were still human and were very liable to write their own words into it and turn it into something it wasn't.

I'm willing to bet that not everyone in Sodom, Gomorrah, nor Egypt was an evil person. Even if some places were worse than others, there were decent people who happend to be living there, too. So therefore, I do not see it as a punishment, but perhaps some things happened which people interpreted as God punishing them, when in fact, that was probably not the case.

In any case, why do you think that? Is this from any empirical evidence? Or is this because of what you think a God or gods should be?

Remember, I'm talking about ego here.

So you're telling me that just because I believe in the spiritual that I'm stuck on myself? I don't really understand what exactly it is that you're getting at, here.

It has nothing to do with what I think a God/Goddess should be. Although, quite frankly, where's the harm in that? That can be used for good, too. If, for instance, your God or diety cares about the Earth and inspires you to do the same, then is that a bad thing? If the same diety inspires you to stop smoking or try to get along with others, is that egotistical?

Don't just put the blame on the good people just because bad apples have made things out to look bad.

As to evidence. I have no proof, but my evidence lies in my life. Whenever I have lived negatively, and let my negative emotions take over me, I have lost a lot of friends and had a lot more hurt to deal with than I did at the beginning. When I have accepted my emotions, but moved on and not dwelled on them, and seen the good as well as the bad, I have done much better, and have been a much nicer person for it. And, although bad things will still happen when you're in a happier state, they won't bring you down as much, and you'll still have the ability to say that for the most part, you enjoy life and it's not so horrible after all. But I never got struck by lightning for not following Christianity or any other religion. I've never had this HUGE, big thing happen to me in direct connection with somthing I had done. Sure, yes, some of my actions have brought on consequences, but I've never had death knocking at my door simply because I have "sinned."

Fact of the matter is, no one is perfect, and for the most part, even the bad apples don't mean to be such. I say, in MOST cases, not all. Average person is just trying to make a living, survive and get through life. Their reactions to certain things make them a positive or a negative person. And while bad things happen that teach lessons, and should be seen as such, usually if some big natural disaster happens, or something, it's not anyone's fault, and it's merely an unfortunate event.

Blaming people for things like Hurricane Katrina is just wrong.

See, that's what I'm talking about. It's not about taking things the "wrong way," what ever that is. It's about thinking that you're special because some deity thinks so in the first place. What warrants this assertion? Is it something we can place outside of human ego and thought?

Everyone is special. Even dieties often seem to recognize that. And if someone has a spiritual revelation or has something happen to them that they connect to a spiritual entity, and feels special, it is NOT because they are better than anyone else that it happened. These things happen to other people, too, and one should feel fortunate if they have such happen to them.

It is something we can place outside of ego. Because things happen, whether you want them to or not. It's a person's interpretation of it which tells you whether it is merely their own ego. Besides, who's to say an egotistical person didn't receive a revelation of some kind... but that perhaps they just read it the wrong way and twisted it's meaning around so as to make them out to be holier than thou? And in the event of people making things up just to seem holier than thou, shame on them.

What I'm saying is that people seem to create their idea of God to conform to their own egos. What they think God should be and should do.

I don't dispute that. It's how people justify that assertion that they're special. Is it because they know that there isn't another individual like them in the entire universe? Or is it because they think God favors them in some way? Do they use God to glorify themselves? Do they use God to give themselves and the events they see around them meaning that is particular to them?

- Aric

I don't know. Why don't you ask them? I cannot answer for everyone, I can only answer for myself.

Part of the reason I consider myself special (unique, rather than better than anyone else), is because I take pride in being my own self, an individual with very special traits and qualities. Yes, those traits and qualities are found in other people, as well, but no one has exactly the same combination of everything. It does not make me better than anyone, but at least I know I can do something right.

Perhaps some people feel that God favors them in some way, but that's not the right attitude to have. There are billions of people on the planet... who are they to think they are favored over the next person that believes in the same thing? They aren't favored. Perhaps they are loved, watched over, etc., but they aren't loved more than anyone else by their diety.

Some people do seem to use God to glorify themselves, particularly fundamentalists of any religion. But that isn't what spirituality is there for. That is merely people playing games with something they know not much of.

As to giving things meaning. I don't know. Although I can say that things have popped up in my life which seemed spur of the moment, and it wasn't like I was sitting there saying "I wish it would happen like this..." That was definitely not the case. The case was that it had happened just out of the blue to help me in dealing with a current problem I had had, even though I had given up on resolving that problem, as there hadn't been any way out of it. Things just happen out of the blue, sometimes. And as long as someone isn't interpreting it to mean they are better than everyone else, and they use it positively in their life, why the hell does it matter?

[aric]

minstelae said:

That is egotistical. Because if she had really received some sort of spiritual revelation, she would have probably either not told anyone about it, or only would have told close friends.

Technically, she wasn't the one who blabbed about the incident on TV. I think it was either her preacher father, her mother, or someone else close to her. In any case, I don't see why keeping it to yourself or announcing it to the world determines whether it was egotistical or not. IMO, the very act of thinking something like that makes it egotistical. I mean, wow, a wind blowing through a mass of people and only caressing you? Boy aren't you special? Nothing about telling other people about it adds to the egoism that's already there.

And that's only one element of egoism that I'm referring to. Look, there's no objective way of telling that the event happened the way it did because God wanted to tell you something. The only thing supporting the idea is the Will to believe that it happened. IOW, only your subjective ego supports the "reality" of the idea.

minstelae said:

Also... who's to say that the other people at that camp didn't experience diety in some other ways than she did, and didn't tell anyone about it?

True. And that just shows Robertson's variety of egotism in Jessica Simpson, albeit on a more benign level. However, even if other people experienced similar things, isn't it still egotistical? Each and every one of the camp-goers who thought they may have experienced something are maintaining the idea in their heads simply through their own Will to Believe as well.

minstelae said:

Spiritual occurances are very personal, and it pays to be careful about who they're shared with. I'd say that a person who is careful about who they share it with is probably telling the truth, and some person who is willing to tell the whole nation about it with no regard whatsoever, is perhaps doing it for egotistic reasons.

Ah, I see where you're going. If people willingly blab about their experiences far and wide, there's a chance they're doing it for attention or for some other self-centered reason. Is that it?

In any case, I think the first sentence of the quote excerpt above is important:

"Spiritual occurances are very personal"

Shouldn't that be the first clue that the experiences are subjective and come from people's egos rather than from anything in objective reality? I'm not talking about selfishness. I'm talking about human subjectivity. In this context, ego=mind. Again, I don't see why telling or not telling about the experience makes it egotistical or not. The way I see it, it's the mere idea of thinking that flow of the universe has come to do things that make you feel good about yourself or special in any way. The wind blowing around Jessica Simpson is, by itself, the wind blowing around Jessica Simpson. It takes her own imagination, her own subjectivity, her own Ego to imbue meaning to the event.

minstelae said:

People do experience things of spiritual natures.

But is this something that actually happened, or something that people think happened? Again, look at the Jessica Simpson occurance. Somehow, she went from "getting cooled off by the wind" to being "favored by God." Isn't the "spiritual" simply a case of people reading thier own impressions into things? Ergo making all supernatural or spiritual events egoistic?

minstelae said:

And just because their deity seems to help them out or teaches them lessons, doesn't mean they are stuck on themselves.

The way I look at egoism, you don't have to be "stuck on yourself." It's simply not being able to step outside of your own thought process to look at something in a more disinterested way. Your subjectivity and objectivity are the same and thus all truths and observations come, by and large, from your Ego.

minstelae said:

Just that people who go into this thing about how holy and special they are and how everyone had better listen to them because those are the words of God... are just saying it for egotistical reasons.

See, I don't think the second part is even necessary for egoism.

minstelae said:

Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying that anyone who talks about a spiritual occurrence is stuck on themselves - just that those who don't think carefully about who they tell about it and what the reactions are, and seems to be glorifying themself, probably has a problem.

Again, I don't differentiate those who keep it to themselves from those who tell the whole wide world. It's not what they do with their revelations, it's how they came to those revelations that make it egoism.

minstelae said:

Pat Robertson is just more bald-faced and crazy in that respect. However, when people read supernatural or divine things into events or occurances that happen to them, is there not the possibility that they too, like old Pat, are making God do what they desire? What their egos read intio the situation?

It's a possibility, and it does happen with many people. But just because it happens with many, does not mean it happens with all. I've had those moments, too. But the difference between the two, the distinguishing factor is, again... does the person seem to be glorifying themself, or are they trying to help?

To be honest, I don't see any practical difference. The methodology that they use to come to the conclusion is egoistic, I think. Isn't there the possibility that those spiritual moments you've had are events where you yourself instill meaning?

I'm saying that all conclusions where people do that are egoistic.

minstelae said:

For instance... is their "revelation" concerned with making themself seem special in the eyes of God... is it all like "Ooooh, yes, God told me this, and I'm a very special person and I will lead a great army one day and thousands will honor me..." or is it more like "God told me I should be more helpful to others and stop to think about what I say to them, so that I don't hurt them? God is telling me to work with my relationships with others, and that perhaps I'm not currently treating them right." The latter would more likely be true.

What makes one more true than the other? There is the possibility that the guy who leads the army thinks he's doing the right thing as well. He may think that he needs to lead the army to fight whatever he thinks is wrong. Both the general and the charitable person think they're doing something helpful that is sanctioned by divinity.

And that is where the problem lies. When you appeal to an alleged source outside of yourself (one that you really can't empirically or objectively corroborate), aren't you just saying that you're getting this advice from God or whatever in order to legitimize that idea? As far as people can objectively tell, you're the one asserting this idea using God as justification. Does it matter that it's Pat Robertson saying God will punish Dover because their actions offend old Pat or whether it's a socialite thinking that God is telling them to be more nice during a bout of guilt over being too mean?

minstelae said:

Not every spiritual revelation is something that the person wants to hear - and very often, they tell you things that you could do to improve yourself and your relationship to people, animals, the planet, etc. For instance, if you have an anger problem, then your diety is more likely to be telling you that you need to work on that, rather than that you are a great person who will be honored and revered.

Why not attribute it to a guilty conscience? Why go the extra length and say that God is making you feel guilty when your own guilt or personal feelings is sufficient?

minstelae said:

Now, if you think the clouds moved for you to say "Oooh, aah, that's the greatest person on Earth," you're full of crap. If the clouds do that and they point something out to you that you were looking for, or you see something in the clouds that holds meaning to you, that can definitely be positive. Whether or not it actually is divine intervention isn't the issue. The fact of the matter is that you see it as such, and you feel like someone's looking out for you, helping you or teaching you, causes many otherwise very lonely people to feel that they mean something to the universe - that they are not forgotten. If the person reads that to mean that they are better than everyone, then they take it the wrong way. If they read it as some way to better themselves, or to help someone or something and not to even think about self-glorification, then they take it the right way.

But I don't see the connection between positive/negative results with egoism. Here's what I'm talking about:

"The fact of the matter is that you see it as such, and you feel like someone's looking out for you, helping you or teaching you, causes many otherwise very lonely people to feel that they mean something to the universe - that they are not forgotten."

Is that not self-serving as well? IOW, egotistical? How is that operationally different from someone reading into an event and making it look like their self-righteousness is justified? Again, I'm not talking about how you apply the conclusions. I'm looking at how you come to the conclusions in the first place.

minstelae said:

Sometimes I get ideas in which I can help others without them finding out about it. Like I might leave a small amount of money laying around or put it in a place that it will be found, but that the person won't know where it came from and will take it. I don't do this all the time, but in situations where a person I care about deeply needs money for something, like gas, or another necessity, occasionally I will do this. Or I might offer a word of encouragement to someone. And I'm just doing these things because it feels good to help people, no matter how minor it is, and I don't go around telling anyone about it. The fact that I know I did it makes me feel good that I have helped someone, but I don't really want the excessive "thank you, thank you, thank you..." or anything like that. I'd just rather not be noticed.

That's just being generous and not wanting credit for it, though altruism does have its own self-serving aspects that you highlighted with the thing about "feeling good."

I'm concentrating on the spiritual and the supernatural. And I'm not saying subjectivity and stuff are necessarily bad. It's just that you hear people justifying a subjective statement or idea by appealing to an objective authority. Pat Robertson is a particularly egregious example, but I think the label of egoism can apply to more benign instances as well.

minstelae said:

Perhaps they were. But it was a person's interpretation of that as a punishment for being evil. I never once denied that bad things happened to people who don't deserve it. They do all the time. Just that in every case, they are not God punishing you. Sometimes they are meant to be learning experiences, and at other times, they are just caused by some natural disaster or freak accident that was bound to happen anyway, and give no regard to who it hurt or killed. But I feel that perhaps people writing the Bible did the same thing that many people do today - assumed it was God punishing them and writing it down as such. I am not saying the Bible is not true, and although I do not follow Christianity, I do believe that some of those things happened back then. However, even though there is the possibility someone may have had spiritual revelations in writing it, the people writing "God's Word" down were still human and were very liable to write their own words into it and turn it into something it wasn't.

I'm willing to bet that not everyone in Sodom, Gomorrah, nor Egypt was an evil person. Even if some places were worse than others, there were decent people who happend to be living there, too. So therefore, I do not see it as a punishment, but perhaps some things happened which people interpreted as God punishing them, when in fact, that was probably not the case.

Well, it's only a problem if you think the Bible should be taken literally. How can you justify something like that?

For those who are more pragmatic, they can just dismiss whole chunks of the Bible that doesn't make sense as crap.

minstelae said:

In any case, why do you think that? Is this from any empirical evidence? Or is this because of what you think a God or gods should be?

Remember, I'm talking about ego here.

So you're telling me that just because I believe in the spiritual that I'm stuck on myself? I don't really understand what exactly it is that you're getting at, here.

I'm using a specific definition of egoism. An alternative label might be subjectivity.

minstelae said:

It has nothing to do with what I think a God/Goddess should be. Although, quite frankly, where's the harm in that? That can be used for good, too. If, for instance, your God or diety cares about the Earth and inspires you to do the same, then is that a bad thing? If the same diety inspires you to stop smoking or try to get along with others, is that egotistical?

I'm not saying it's bad to be egoistic. I'm asking whether religion and spirituality are egoistic at all since most people seem to claim that they're not. IOW, most people think religion or spirituality refers to something objectively real. That what they believe is actually representative of the univese that exists outside of their minds, their egos.

minstelae said:

Don't just put the blame on the good people just because bad apples have made things out to look bad.

It's not about blame. I'm not concerned about how they apply the conclusions they've reached through egoism. It's how they got there, IOW egoism, that I'm interested in.

minstelae said:

As to evidence. I have no proof, but my evidence lies in my life. Whenever I have lived negatively, and let my negative emotions take over me, I have lost a lot of friends and had a lot more hurt to deal with than I did at the beginning. When I have accepted my emotions, but moved on and not dwelled on them, and seen the good as well as the bad, I have done much better, and have been a much nicer person for it. And, although bad things will still happen when you're in a happier state, they won't bring you down as much, and you'll still have the ability to say that for the most part, you enjoy life and it's not so horrible after all. But I never got struck by lightning for not following Christianity or any other religion. I've never had this HUGE, big thing happen to me in direct connection with somthing I had done. Sure, yes, some of my actions have brought on consequences, but I've never had death knocking at my door simply because I have "sinned."

And I respect that fact that you're honest with yourself about where your truths and knowledge comes from. The fact of the matter is, though, that a heck of a lot of people aren't like that. It's not about something that's strictly within the context of their own lives. It has to be universal, something that exists out there, wherever that is. Like I said before, it's about appealing to an alleged objective authority to justify subjective ideas and give your beliefs legitimacy.

minstelae said:

Fact of the matter is, no one is perfect, and for the most part, even the bad apples don't mean to be such. I say, in MOST cases, not all. Average person is just trying to make a living, survive and get through life.

Well, I'm a bit dubious as to whether thinking you're good and yet do some nasty things means anything at all. I think a lot of people who have done bad thought they were doing good. I mean, those people who were against racial segregation honestly believed that "race-mixing" was bad and that their resistance against it was a good struggle. Simply thinking that they're good isn't really enough, IMNSHO.

minstelae said:

Their reactions to certain things make them a positive or a negative person. And while bad things happen that teach lessons, and should be seen as such, usually if some big natural disaster happens, or something, it's not anyone's fault, and it's merely an unfortunate event.

Blaming people for things like Hurricane Katrina is just wrong.

Agreed.

minstelae said:

Everyone is special. Even dieties often seem to recognize that. And if someone has a spiritual revelation or has something happen to them that they connect to a spiritual entity, and feels special, it is NOT because they are better than anyone else that it happened. These things happen to other people, too, and one should feel fortunate if they have such happen to them.

Again, I don't think that only what they do with the revelation makes them egoistic. It's how they came to the conclusion that interests me.

How do people make the assertion that they've been contacted by God or some spiritual/supernatural entity? It's definitely not something they can prove or disprove. The only thing supporting that assertion is, again, their Will to Believe that it happened.

Again, I'm not saying it's a bad thing. just that a lot of people don't seem to realize that it is egoistic, or shall I say subjective.

minstelae said:

It is something we can place outside of ego. Because things happen, whether you want them to or not. It's a person's interpretation of it which tells you whether it is merely their own ego. Besides, who's to say an egotistical person didn't receive a revelation of some kind... but that perhaps they just read it the wrong way and twisted it's meaning around so as to make them out to be holier than thou? And in the event of people making things up just to seem holier than thou, shame on them.

For the purposes of my argument, ego=subjective. Ego=mind. People claim to say that God or whatever exists outside of their own minds and egos, but really there's no way to tell that. And the only thing they're basing the assertion that God or whatever exists outside of their own minds is that they believe it to be so. As far as I can tell, this is pure Ego along the lines that I layed out right above.

minstelae said:

What I'm saying is that people seem to create their idea of God to conform to their own egos. What they think God should be and should do.

I don't dispute that. It's how people justify that assertion that they're special. Is it because they know that there isn't another individual like them in the entire universe? Or is it because they think God favors them in some way? Do they use God to glorify themselves? Do they use God to give themselves and the events they see around them meaning that is particular to them?

- Aric

I don't know. Why don't you ask them? I cannot answer for everyone, I can only answer for myself.

And you've done quite well, IMNSHO. You've been quite honest with yourself about how you've come to many of your conclusions, it seems to me. That makes you a hell of a lot more pragmatic and sensible than Pat Robertson.

In any case, I intend all of the responses to people to be open to discussion by everyone else. I think that's the reason for open message boards. People can read and respond as they like whether or not it was aimed at them.

minstelae said:

Part of the reason I consider myself special (unique, rather than better than anyone else), is because I take pride in being my own self, an individual with very special traits and qualities. Yes, those traits and qualities are found in other people, as well, but no one has exactly the same combination of everything. It does not make me better than anyone, but at least I know I can do something right.

Same here.

minstelae said:

Perhaps some people feel that God favors them in some way, but that's not the right attitude to have. There are billions of people on the planet... who are they to think they are favored over the next person that believes in the same thing? They aren't favored. Perhaps they are loved, watched over, etc., but they aren't loved more than anyone else by their diety.

Well, there are ways for God to favor you without making you superior. Does a mother prefer one of her children over others? I hope not. Does special attention mean you're better than the other children? Special for those moments, but not better.

The reason I brought this up was not to say that it was wrong to think that you might get some attention from an omnipotent being, or that thinking so makes you selfish or prone to think you're better than other people; it was to bring up the issue of subjectivity passed off as objectivity. In my clumsy way, I associated the subjective mind with "ego." This is what I see when I see Pat Robertson going off the way he does, or everytime someone says something about the supernatural with a heck of a lot of conviction that, IMO, is usually not warranted.

minstelae said:

Some people do seem to use God to glorify themselves, particularly fundamentalists of any religion. But that isn't what spirituality is there for. That is merely people playing games with something they know not much of.

I don;t think they know any more or any less than the next person about the supernatural and the spiritual. That's sort of the meaning of subjectivity, I think.

minstelae said:

As to giving things meaning. I don't know. Although I can say that things have popped up in my life which seemed spur of the moment, and it wasn't like I was sitting there saying "I wish it would happen like this..." That was definitely not the case. The case was that it had happened just out of the blue to help me in dealing with a current problem I had had, even though I had given up on resolving that problem, as there hadn't been any way out of it. Things just happen out of the blue, sometimes. And as long as someone isn't interpreting it to mean they are better than everyone else, and they use it positively in their life, why the hell does it matter?

It doesn't matter in that it's not necessarily bad in and of itself. I just wanted to point out that there's a good chance that such things were subjective, as opposed to some people's assertions to the contrary. What I wanted to concetrate on was the occurance of people claiming objective authority to justify something that, from my standpoint, was clearly subjective, ie. it came from their ego. The thread wasn't meant to say whether it was bad or not.

Bringing up Pat Robertson at the beginning wasn't meant to label all spirituality as bad or all religious thoughts as bad. I wanted to discuss the role of ego (subjectivity, the human mind, etc) in devising those beliefs in the first place.

- Aric