Gloria asks a great question: What is the experience of euphoria when people are “saved”? How can people make such drastic changes in their lives unless God was involved?
I know I had a life-changing experience when I became a Christian. I thought very differently. My goals, attitude, clothing, music, and language changed, along with many other things.
This experience (called a “testimony”) is what most Christians provide as evidence for Christianity. I remember being told, “They can’t argue with your story! Use it!” We would then go out and knock on doors, telling our story over and over again.
I have had many conversations as a nonbeliever where the believer cannot provide any evidence for belief except saying “It must be true — my life changed so much after becoming a Christian!”
But that is not evidence. It can be said for any religion or experience. The Mormon, New Ager and AA member say the same thing. A subjective experience does not mean something is objectively true.
So what happens? In my opinion, it is the pressure of a group combined with an internal loss of guilt. That is, the new Christian is happy because their “sins are forgiven” and they stop feeling guilty about bad things they have done. Combine this with a church community where there is immense pressure to conform to rules of morality and spiritually, and it creates a very memorable and powerful experience. It is, indeed, life-changing — but not because of God.
That’s what happened with me, along with others I know.
What do you think?
You make a pretty good point. I hadn’t thought about the loss of guilt as a factor.
Not only is there “immense pressure to conform to rules of morality,” there is immense pressure to feel the way you describe having felt!
SWo even if you don’t, you convince yourself that you do. Or you feel that way just a little bit, and then build that up by layers in your memory until it fully qualifies as your “testimony.”
I know I did!
I wrote about my own “euphoric” experience here:
http://doubtingeventhomas.blogspot.com/2008/05/getting-high-with-jesus.html
There definitely seemed to be some group hypnosis mumbo jumbo happening that night. Nothing like loud music and a guilty conscience to make someone get saved!
Add in the fact that you now belong to a group (a socially acceptable group, at that), and a bit of mass hysteria.
I personally think that the euphoria of the “come to Jesus” revivals is *exactly* the same euphoria you can get at a football game when your hometown team is winning – everyone there is happy and together, and there’s a euphoria in that.
I think it’s primarily the social support and the fact you are making the other christians around you sooo happy. I think it is an interesting point about the guilt however for the very short period in my early teens when I joined an american style fundie youth group the bethel baptists altho they tried very hard to scare us into feeling like sinners, it was the attention and positive reinforcement that seemed to have the effect of making us “sign up”
Luckily my early feminism saved me, the misogyny was so overt it kicked my sense of unfairness and bang, happy atheism yay!.
Yeah, I recall the happy-hallelujah stage. In my case, it had a lot to do with a geeky, isolated teenager finding a social group that welcomed him. And I liked the music.
Interesting question. Unfortunately, I cannot answer it. I never had a euphoric sense of receiving salvation. As far as I can tell I have always been a Christian — and I can remember being a little baby and crawling. Yeah, I have questioned my faith. Yeah, I have been mad at God. Really, really mad. But I still believe. I never had a “conversion experience.” In fact, I used to feel guilty because people told me that I wasn’t a Christian if I had never had a conversion experience. I eventually learned that they were wrong about that.
I can’t really say what causes the euphoric state. Maybe it is just social pressure. Obviously, it doesn’t last forever.
I hope you don’t mind a Christian commenting on your blog.
Esther: All are welcome… but expect your comments to be analysed and argued and weighed. We respect your right to believe what you want… but we’ll also test the rationality of your belief. Only stay if you’re sure you can defend what you believe with logic, not emotion.
And I’ve been the same but atheist (except my memories go spotty about the age of 7). Never converted. But it sounds like social situations where everyone’s working together. Having done a lot of drama in high school, that’s what you get when a play’s nearing opening night; a sense of unity, drive, passion, excitement… and most importantly, you begin to take on the character people tell you you are and treat you as. It’s hard to draw a line, you begin to internalise it… it can be hard to tell where you end and the character begins. And churchgoing is a performance. People behave in certain proscribed ways, say and do certain things. We’re all familiar with the standard phrases. That’s the script. The church community are the cast. The pastor is the director, occasionally having a little talk with people who are having trouble staying in character. And if someone comes into a cast that’s already begun to take on their characters, they can pick it up easily…
It’s easy to see where it comes from.
wazza: Don’t worry man. I like getting myself into no-win situations. ;oP Logic is very important to me.
I would pair the release of guilt with abdication of responsibility. SomeOne else is now driving your life. Plus, you no longer have to/are encouraged to do your own thinking; that’s what the minister is for. I guess I would equate it with the euphoria that comes with the beginning of Vacation.
@10- I highly disagree with the abdication theory. It may hold true in some circumstances, but I believe in most cases new Christians would describe an increase in responsibility. I also think that the comment about no longer doing “your own thinking; that’s what the minister is for” is misguided in the sense that is applies to cults and, regardless of how some may try to skew the evidence, Christianity does not fall within the definition of a cult.
——————————————————————–
Strangely enough, I think the answer you’re looking for is found in sex. During intercourse both men and women produce a neurotransmitter called oxytocin. (Not to be confused with oxycontin, the ever popular hill-billy heroine) Oxytocin is a chemical that induces the state of euphoria experienced during orgasm. As we all know, sex or the prospect thereof, will make a perfectly rational human being do things entirely out of character. Oxytocin, along with dopamine and serotonin, is the physiological perpetrator behind the euphoria of “puppy love”. There are also a wide variety of social implications that tend to produce this chemical reaction. I think many of these were touched on in comments 3-6. Unfortunately, the brain only pumps out large amounts of oxytocin for about 18 months. After that, it slows the flow of oxytocin and switches to another chemical called vasopressin. This is like stepping down from heroine to hydrocodone. Think of all the strong romantic relationships that have fizzled somewhere between the 12 and 18 month marks. Also, I believe that if you surveyed a number of people (especially teens) a month after their conversion experience and then again 18 months later, you’d see a substantial qualitative difference.
Now, here’s the kicker…
@ Doubting Foo… I read your blog post and the thing is many drugs especially MDMA (ecstasy) directly stimulate oxytocin activity. So, I’d say you’re dead on.
Saying all this, I want each of you to know that not all Christians are dopamine fueled teenagers abusing euphoric brain chemicals in order to face a harsh, nihilistic world. I count myself among those who aren’t.
Cult: n. A small, unpopular religion.
Religion: n. A large, popular cult.
Next?
@David…
I don’t mean to pick or introduce any sort of ad hominem argument, but I do have a legitimate concern. I feel that many atheist tend to pride themselves on their deft use of logic and reason, and compared to the general population, I think this, for the most part, true. However, I notice that often many atheist commit serious logical fallacies in their arguments. This usually goes unchecked because many religious people just tend to get flustered and red-faced.
With that being said I would like to gently call to attention the three logical fallacies I noticed in the dozen or so words of this comment. I’m not much of a logician, but….
1. Fallacy of false analogy. The fallacy of disregarding significant dissimilarities and concluding that because two things are similar in some respects, they must be similar in all respects.
2. Straw Man. Fallacy of misrepresenting an opposing viewpoint.
3. Misdirection. In this case the fallacy of early dismissal embodied in the concluding phrase, “Next?”
That’s three fallacies in less than 20 words. Sorry David, I’m not trying to call you out. In fact, you’re in good company. Nietzsche has a horrible habit of denying the antecedent. If you don’t believe me, just read Twilight of the Idols, or The Anti-Christ with an open mind.
eh… if we’re going to be slamming authorities…
CS Lewis couldn’t argue his way out of a wet paper bag, the trilemma is a joke!
Or we could stick to the argument at hand?
(David?)
Sorry, it’s an old line on our side with no relevance here. It’s more relevant in discussions of the respect due religion.
Wade, great post, thanks. I totally agree with, and share, your neurobiological take on this. This model nicely explains the addiction-like characteristics of religious belief, i.e. chasing the high. It also gives a nod towards the social aspect of religion with regard to the bonding sensation correlated with oxytocin (which is also released during breast-feeding, as I recall, not only during sex). It would be REALLY interesting to measure oxytocin levels in recent converts and compare it with people “in love,” recent moms and “normals.”
I don’t think I agree with the guilt idea. This is hardly evidence, but personally I was a ridiculously good kid and I don’t remember feeling any guilt at all before or during my experience(s). Additionally, guilt is a mostly cognitive experience; the conversion euphoria is purely emotional.
I’ll copy/paste some of my comment from exchristiandotnet here, if that’s ok:
I, personally, have definitely had the conversion experience more than once, and it was so powerful that it remained the last bit of “evidence” that kept me hooked on the idea that maybe there was something supernatural in religion. What there is, I now believe, is a powerful social bonding experience that might be better described as “supra-natural.”
Humans are the least well-adapted organism on the planet (if you’ll forgive the hyperbole). No fangs, no fur, no venom, slow, soft, etc. The only reason we’ve become the dominant species is because we are highly social creatures. If you’ll allow for this assertion it begs the questions “what is the mechanism that drives us to be social? Why do we form groups?” Simply: it feels good. It feels really good. Emotion.
Emotions exist because they are adaptive. Fear does it’s job to keep you from danger. Love, on the other, does its job by pulling you towards not only mates, but the protection of a group.
The closest I’ve come to repeating that conversion-phenomenon feeling was at that point, that moment, when I knew I had fallen in love and I “was going for it.” Love forms a powerful bond with others, and it feels euphoric. The conversion phenomenon also forms a powerful social bond, not only with the group into which you are being accepted, but with what is perceived as a very real entity; it, too, feels euphoric.
Therefore, I believe that the conversion phenomenon is a powerful stimulation of the evolutionarily adaptive emotional response normally evoked during personal bonding and/or a group initiation rite. Considering the conversion phenomenon combines both personal (with God) and group (with church) bonding experiences it is little wonder people describe it as powerful.
This explanation, I think, goes a long way towards explaining why religion has been with us since pre-history (it works for survival), why people continue to choose it despite its being unreasonable (addiction model), and why it’s so difficult to extinguish.
I feel like my euphoria was when I “converted” to atheism. It was, as some have mentioned, the freedom from always feeling guilty about something or other and having to repent.
It was also a feeling of finally getting my life back in control. It’s like going from working under a fickle and hard-to-understand boss, to starting your own business and doing things the way you want.
@ wazza…
I agree the trilemma isn’t a very convincing argument, especially in light of postmodern thought. However, it is not a victim of any obvious logically fallacies. The problem with the argument rests in it’s axiom. So, the weak point is the possibility of an appeal to faulty authority (i.e. the NT). And I believe that Lewis preceded the trilemma by stating his axiom. The only other possible fallacy that I see would be false dichotomy or in this case “false trichotomy?” To attack the argument from this prospective one would have to make a case for a sane man honestly believing himself to be God. Which may be possible, but is not a home run by any means.
The point I was trying to make is that many atheist, who pride themselves on their use of reason seem to use a lot of faulty logic. And I’m afraid to say, wazza, you have done a very good job of justifying this case with your ad hominum remarks. I am not trying to proselytize. I don’t even believe in proselytizing. I am just trying to encourage good, sound logical arguments that do not resort to name calling. I love philosophy, logic, and the world of ideas and as I said in a previous post, I don’t get the opportunity to exercise this very often. I am just looking for good interaction and debate, and I really enjoy hearing from Daniel and many of the posters here. However, if we disagree, I would love to have a good legitimate, rational argument as opposed to sophomoric name calling and quick dismissals of opposing viewpoints.
@Roadguru…
Thanks for the thoughts… I’m gonna be kicking lot of that stuff around for a while and will try to put together a post on my blog.
@Wade
What’s your blog? I’d like to check it out.
Oy. I make a joking reply to the statement “Christianity does not fall within the definition of a cult” and *I* get called out on three logical fallacies.
I guess it depends on which definition of a cult you employ.
The neurobiological mechanisms leading to the conversion-euphoria experiences are exploited by all religions, regardless of whether they claim ten to the 2, 4, 6 or 9 adherents.
If you cannot see THAT point in my post, you are trying REALLY hard not to.
Another life ago, when I was trucking for the army, we had a few hardcore converts.
Most of them joined the army in their late teens and spent the next few years scrapping, drinking, smoking, screwing, and trying various pharmaceutical concoctions.
They usually continued this way for a few years after marriage, growing more deeply in debt, having troubled relationships with spouses, kids, and bosses, and often making stupid choices with long-term consequences such as divorce, loss of promotions, etc.
Then one day they’d have their worst day ever, usually a confluence of two or more of the above problems. At that point they often “gave themselves to Jesus.”
Suddenly they’d sober up and fly right. Their job performance and personal relationships would improve. They’d stay home nights, building relationships and saving money. They’d feel better (not being massively hung over and sleepless).
Such people were referred to as having “found Jesus in the glove compartment.”
And every one was willing to testify to the power of Christ in their lives at the drop of a hat.
My response was: “So you stopped being an @$$#013 because God said to? How do you know?”
“Well it’s obvious–look how much better a person I’ve become through the Lord!”
“How do you know you didn’t do it alone?”
“Because I felt the presence of God.”
“How do you know?”
“Well it’s obvious–look how much better a person I’ve become!”
And around and around and around …
Wade, the trilemma, if I remember correctly, is that Jesus was either mad, a liar, or the son of God, if you accept the NT as true. But *right now* we have a man, the Reverend Moon, claiming to be the son of God. Which is he?
Lewis doesn’t seem to have allowed for the fact that humans are complex creatures. People who are otherwise well-balanced, even wiser than their peers, can still have funny little foibles.
Also, accepting the NT as perfectly true is not going to help you argue for anything. It’s a book of uncertain authorship written 30 years or more after the latest events it chronicles. Not what I’d call reliable evidence, considering there’s nothing much to support it.
I skipped reading the other comments. And because you did ask…
You are spot on. What you described is, by literal definition, a cult. Good for you for not staying in a cult.
But I, and many millions like me, are not, and never were affiliated with your 1 out of 50,000 denominations of Christianity and therefore do not associate ourselves with your descriptions. Yet we still find fulfillment in our spirituality and maintain firm beliefs, differing though they may be from one another.
We believe in sound and historic theology. Reason. And deliberate thoughtful critique. Not feelings. Though feelings do occur.
What say you to this?
If you base your belief on reason, why isn’t everyone a christian?
(ie, give us your arguments so we can see if they’re convincing!)
@Jesse: I would say I experienced both (take a look at my about page). I was very into both presuppositional and evidential apologetics. I had courses in logic and rhetoric and philosophy from a Christian college. I wasn’t part of some crazy sect that was all feeling — it was passion combined with grace and reason.
@wazza
RE: 21
I totally agree with your method in the post at 21. You are actually attacking the argument from the same two points I suggested in 17; the false dichotomy and the weak axiom. As I stated before, I don’t think that the trilemma is strong argument, just that as far as logical arguments go, it is fairly well constructed, and thus the work of someone who has a grasp of rhetoric. I’m not a huge Lewis fan, but he is pretty sound logician and great mind, I’d suggest an often overlooked book of his called The Abolition of Man. It is one of his few works that deals directly with philosophy and does not touch on apologetics at all.
RE: 23
I will never make the claim that Christianity is a rational belief system that is accessible merely by intellectual ascent. At the heart of Christianity is a paradox: one man who is fully human, and fully God. Regardless of how this is spun (i.e. a long discourse on Aristotelian substance v. accident) this has huge logical implications. And this is just the beginning, there are also many other paradoxical doctrines in the faith (off the top of my head would be John 1:1-2). These are huge philo/theological pills that entirely too many Christians swallow without thinking.
Even within the framework of a paradoxical faith, one cannot altogether discard reason. For a good non-apologetical discourse on how inexplicable paradox and reason co-exist, I’d suggest Wittgenstein’s Tractus Logico-Philosophicus which ends with the statement “Of which one cannot speak, one must remain silent.” The paradoxical nature of the faith is something I understand on existential level, beyond that, I do not believe anyone will ever be able to construct Jacob’s ladder out of pure reason. I believe this is by the design of God. Faith was never meant to be an intellectual ascent. If it were, wazza, you’re question would be dead on. However, I believe the core of the Christian faith is not found in an exercise of first order predicate calculus, but rather the love story of the triune God (sappy, I know, but I’ve found He’s quite fond of me).
Having said that, I believe that God still works within the bounds of reason in a sort of anthropomorphic way. The question you have asked is a great one and demands a book! I hope in my stumbling through I gave you some insight as to how an intellectual, post-modern Christian views reason and faith. I’d suggest to you, Kierkegaard’s Concluding Unscientific Post-Script to Philosophical Fragments or a much lighter read in GK Chesterton’s Orthodoxy.
@Roadguru
My blog is http://catacombsubculture.com It is much, much lighter in scope than anything I’ve discussed in this thread, but I will try to get a good post up re: the physiology of conversion. I have some very strong views on this especially as it relates to the manipulation of youth.
@ all
I’m really enjoying all this discussion. I am on the road however, so forgive me if I don’t respond too quickly! Thanks for hosting, Daniel. You know I am a fan.
I think you’ve hit the nail on the head, Daniel. The church or its witnesses or its teachings create a huge tension within the potential convert by getting them to think it plausible that you are guilty before their god. And then they offer access to a “release valve” of removing all the guilt, fear, dread, and angst: “praying the prayer”, or its functional equivalents. Then comes the euphoria in this psychodrama of conflict resolution.
To Metro:
I have met a few people who are divorced/former addicts, etc, who make the same claims. The old “Argument from self-destruction”.
If these people had any brains in their head, maybe they would not have ruined their lives in the first place. Some people can take care of themselves just fine, thank you very much. It is pretty arrogant that these people think I need what they need.
THere is a euphoria when you agree to LET THINGS GO, like worries or guilt, but you would’ve felt good letting it go WITHOUT god to play catcher. Some of the feelings I experience during prayer were difficult to justify once I became a rational mind, but I realized that my imagination is powerful and what the mind thinks, the body feels.
I still feel moved by music, dance, to the point of tears and swelling joy. It’s not God — It’s just beauty, and that’s how simple it is.
I come at this question from another direction, as 20-year practitioner of Wicca. Wicca does not require that you believe this, that or the other thing. Instead, it is a set of practices and the use of those practices presumably teaches the Wiccan about themselves and their strengths and (if they are inclined that way) the nature of the divine.
I think that, with people who are not raised in a particular faith, they will adhere to the first religious group in which they experience this sort of ecstatic experience that many associate with religious revelation.
Wicca has taught me is that these sorts of ecstatic experiences can be induced in various ways, and in fact this is not difficult. Some ways include the less subtle practices associated with Super Bowl games, others have to do with loading the listener with evocative but nonsensical cascades of language. Music is quite effective, and various forms of privation and ordeal will also yield such results. Habit and repetition help a lot.
Now, this induction does not necessarily mean that the feeling of contact with divinity is either valid or invalid. I will reserve judgment on that. But the emotional event itself doesn’t prove the validity of the contact one way or the other. The emotional event is external to the religious event.
Compare this to how animals decide what to eat or to not eat. In the wild, sugar, fat and salt are good indicators of items that would be good to eat. However, sugar and fat and salt can also be applied to nonfood items, or even poisonous items, and they will be eaten with a grateful Hallelujah.
it’s ironic that I had to learn the practice of Wicca before I could fully understand the practices of the everyday religions I grew up with. In some cases, I think I understand them better than the people who actually practice them. but I could be wrong about that.
@Noni Mausa
Actually, it rather tends to invalidate it, wouldn’t you think?
As it’s been said by Kimberly, there is euphoria in letting go, and in succeeding at a project or task … and in myraid other fully human experiences which do not require contact with any sort of divinity. Why should there be any circumstances in which euphoria would require one?
I mean, they’ve even succeeded in duplicating near-death experiences in the lab. Which I think would be an amazingly cool fun fair attraction.
Speaking of evocative but nonsensical cascades of language: In my experience Wicca is the same as any other religion–there are a few basic rules for living together without screwing each other over too much, and then there’s the regalia we dress them in, which is merely decoration.
I mean, a religion that “does not require that you believe this, that, or the other thing” seems less a religion than a sort of feel-good psychology. Not that there’s anything wrong with that in and of itself.
What is it that you worship? To whom do you offer prayer and sacrifice? What power rules you? What rituals does it require? And how do you know it’s Wicca if there are no requirements of belief?
———-
Not necessarily. One way to think about the human sense which may or may not sense the divine, is to use this metaphor: think of it as a primitive light-sensitive patch which has not yet evolved into an eye. The planaria swimming around can use it to move toward or away from sources of light, but it cannot tell what these sources are. In addition, other stimuli (perhaps chemicals? or being punched in the eye by another planarium?) can also convey the impression of light, without any light being present.
If a planarium was born without eye-spots, perhaps Dr. Flatworm could graft one on. Then his patient would have vision just like the other flatworms. But this intervention itself would not lead flatworms to invalidate their primitive vision, nor would it tell the flatworms anything about whether the moon and sun exist. There is something there, we just don’t know what.
As for your second point: “I mean, a religion that “does not require that you believe this, that, or the other thing” seems less a religion than a sort of feel-good psychology.”
This may be one of the chief ways Wicca differs from other religions — it is more a science or craft than a belief system. Since this is not my blog, there’s no space to say enough more to give you a grounding, assuming you wanted one. Suffice it to say, reading books to learn about it is a poor third or fourth place behind the most casual one hour demo in a park or living room.
As to what I worship — Well, this still isn’t my blog. But “worship” means “a recognition of worth”. I see worship as a variety of recognition. A recognition of magnificence, or rightness,or the small excellences of the world of little animals and plants. We all differ, but I see it in the living world, usually. Trees and water and mice and galaxies and the physics of a strummed guitar string. This doesn’t mean I sacrifice to the mouse-god, or obey the sunrise goddess — obedience does not come into modern day paganism, believe me.
Enough for now, thanks for asking.
Noni
PS: “And how do you know it’s Wicca if there are no requirements of belief?” Good question, we argue about that a lot. We still haven’t got an answer for that one. -N
@Noni:
Thanks for your civil answers re. Wicca.
As to the planaria metaphor … Why posit a human sense that acts as a god detector at all in the absence of any evidence whatsoever?
And I don’t think I understand the Dr. Flatworm graft argument at all.
It seems much more useful to think of “god” as the false stimulus (chemicals are particularly appropriate) rather than considering as false the input of the world we experience both directly and indirectly.
I don’t “feel” any presence out there. Reason tells me that any such feeling is a longing for the comforts and certainties of my Catholic childhood.
Hi Metro,
“I don’t “feel” any presence out there.”
A lot of people don’t. A lot of people do. Either group, or both, might be right about what they feel.
But that’s okay. We don’t proselytize (though we do learn to spell “proselytize”) We don’t declare our working structure is a real model of this or any other world. We try different practices and take advantage of what comes of them.
Dr. Ronald Hutton (Bristol) wrote that “Wicca is like a lobster trap in reverse — hard to get into and easy to leave.” It takes study and practice and thinking and reading to get good at it. There are no football games or charities or overt social approval (though there are a LOT of potlucks). The theology doesn’t come to the new practitioner ready-made, it’s still being built. You don’t get major public holidays off, except all the holidays everyone else gets. Plus, people think you’re goofy. It’s amazing anyone practices it at all; other religions have much more “stuff” and don’t get laughed at (as much).
But there’s about 1 – 2 million of us worldwide, thus confirming my old saying, “No matter what you believe, you will find someone who agrees.” ;-)
Past my bedtime. Be well,
Noni
“As to what I worship — Well, this still isn’t my blog. But “worship” means “a recognition of worth”. I see worship as a variety of recognition. A recognition of magnificence, or rightness,or the small excellences of the world of little animals and plants. We all differ, but I see it in the living world, usually. Trees and water and mice and galaxies and the physics of a strummed guitar string.”
This is 1) a perfect description of what worship means, and
2) the reason I cannot abandon religion (at this time =P)
I know very, very little about Wicca, and would hate to offend. Forgive blundering?
The intricacy of the world around me, from fractals to landscapes, and the weight and value I believe it has, is one of my most favoritest parts of my belief system. I am a Christian, but this rings entirely true for me, the principal difference being that I assign credit for it to a singular (or triune, if you wanna get picky) divine being. I in no way mean to hijack your description of Wicca for the purposes of glorifying Christianity at its expense, nor would I want to make an accidental gaffe in associating you with something you might not particularly like. At any rate, if you were looking for a good description of worship, which I think is a fair hallmark of a Christian life well-led (and perhaps also a Wiccan life well-led? Or maybe we could even say a religious life well-led?), then here is an excellent definition.
…the principal difference being that I assign credit for it to a singular (or triune, if you wanna get picky) divine being…
Hi Jonboy, and thanks.
As you pursue it, the argument about Who created What, at least in my experience, shades more and more towards something which can neither be explained nor really discussed, certainly not proven. What is a cloud? Let’s walk towards a cloud — all we find is wet air. And wet air is a brick wall compared with what you encounter when you approach deity.
See, I don’t need to declare I know who created what. I don’t even need to believe in God. But treasuring, and giving thanks when you see something beautiful or terrifying, that is the practice of worship, and to be effective it doesn’t need a concrete focus. (But it does need what tai kwon do needs — a focus just past the object itself.)
It’s entirely possible that when you “approach deity” you are approaching nothing. But the blessedness and awareness which are drawn out of the practitioner, in his recognition of beauty and terror — ah, those are real, and have real effects.
I love talking theology. God knows why I hang out at atheist blogs. Thank you for your patience.
Noni
I have to say, as an atheist, what you call worship we call a sense of wonder at the universe. And no, you don’t have to give it up when you ditch the childish fantasies of a sky daddy (I’m talking to you, Jonboy)
most of my friends are wiccans. It’s the kind of faith I can get alongside, because it doesn’t force anything on anyone.