The Larger Issues Thread

[Bella]

First, I need to announce that my co-lead, Aethera, is going to be out for a while. Stepping in will be FrenchToast. I told her you were all good posters. (If the site allowed emoticons, I'd insert a winky face here.)

 

Second, this is the OT-But-Not-Small-Talk thread.

 

We know this show brings up a lot of cultural issues, and we want to give you a place to discuss them. We also want to avoid having the discussion take over the spoiler or episode threads. However, this is a charged subject, so we're starting this thread conditionally and will lock it if it causes trouble.

As a condition of this thread's existence, we expect you to think beyond your own point of view and consider that of others. Try to put yourself in their place before you reply to their comments. This is a learning opportunity, not an argument clinic. Lecturing and scolding will not be tolerated.

Finally, we're going to have a zero-tolerance for personal attacks, etc. That means we reserve the right to skip the usual mod notes, PMs, etc., and go straight to warning and even suspending people. You've all been around PTV and you all know our expectations. Please live up to them.

And please don't make us regret this experiment.

Thanks.

[Snarklepuss]

I wonder how most atheists would feel if I, with a degree in Theology would practice counseling in atheism.  I wouldn't blame them for not liking the idea.  I don't think there would be any way for me to stop my beliefs from coming through.

 

It's one thing to have knowledge and an understanding of faith in a transcendent God as a purely intellectual concept with no experiential component, but quite another to understand it as one who possesses it.  As a theist I think an atheist has no business doling out such advice to theists.  One has to have experienced it to relate to people who experience it, IMHO.  It would be just as preposterous as Roman Catholic priests doling out advice on sexual relationships when they've never even had sex.

 

Also, from what I understand about atheists, most of them don't have faith in any transcendent being outside the natural universe.  To them faith is something one has when one doesn't accept what is present to our eyes in the natural world as all there is.  If one accepts that the universe or natural world was never created by a transcendent being and exists by itself without need of one, one doesn't need to have faith in anything.  Faith is belief in the unseen, not the seen.

[Snarklepuss]

Even though he's an atheist, I'm sure he knows far more about religions and religious beliefs than your average believer. Doesn't he have a master's degree in theology? While a devout Christian may know his/her religion inside out and a devout Jew might know his, they don't necessarily know much about each other's beliefs and practices. From what I've gathered he's there to make sure that the participants' religious beliefs and expectations regarding religion are at least somewhat in line, so they're not matching people who are likely to run into serious issues on that front. He's not there to give religious counseling, otherwise they'd have to have a chaplain of each denomination. Or do you think they should have a rabbi advising Christians or a priest advising Jews? I think it's good that he doesn't have his own beliefs clouding his judgement, so he can view all their faiths objectively. He's not anti-religious after all, otherwise he wouldn't have spent years and years studying religious beliefs.

 

Epstein is supposed to be a "humanist" - but if he is also an atheist he is therefore a secular humanist and not someone who has the same point of view as those who are theists.  I'm an Episcopalian and I'd personally rather take spiritual advice from a Rabbi than an atheist.  There are far more fundamental similarities between the worldviews of any two believers no matter what religions they are than between believers and secular/atheistic humanists.  Just like the celibate priests giving out relationship/sexual advice.  Is it possible for them to understand these things?  Sure, but the quality of the advice is going to suffer from not having experience with it, IMHO.  Same with faith.  That's because faith itself is not just understandable from an intellectual standpoint.  It's not just a concept, it's an experience, and thus if you've never experienced it you're knowledge of it is not going to be very good either.  That's why I never became a substance abuse counselor - most of them are former users and the clients don't tend to trust the opinions/advice of counselors that never were once themselves substance abusers.  And I don't blame them, personally.

Edited December 11, 2015 by Snarklepuss

[ketose]

I read that a Humanist chaplain sort of emulates a religious chaplain, but does ceremonies, counseling and outreach for the nonreligious. It doesn't seem to be a big field, so I doubt one would go to a humanist chaplain if they were a theist in the first place.

 

As far as Greg Epstein and MAFS, the show is decidedly non-spiritual. The very premise is that people don't have to meet before they get married. The weddings look secular. Many religions probably wouldn't even sign off on this kind of wedding. I'd say the humanist on the show is as useful / useless as any of the other experts. However, in his favor, I haven't seen a couple with a huge religious / spiritual rift.

[Snarklepuss]

There are actually theists that incorporate aspects of humanism into their beliefs so all people who agree with aspects of humanism aren't necessarily atheists.  I remember a form of Christian theology that took a lot from humanistic philosophy, but that still doesn't make it humanism.  There are a lot of people who call themselves "spiritual" atheists but for the life of me I can't justify that at all because spiritual things imply a world beyond the natural one and if you're an atheist you don't believe in that.  If the show is so decidedly non-spiritual, why bother hiring an atheist who calls himself a spiritual adviser?  It makes absolutely no sense to me.

 

It's true that there haven't been any huge religious/spiritual rifts between the couples and they haven't even mentioned that aspect of their relationships.  I wonder why that is.  That's a big part of a relationship and one that if gotten wrong can cause BIG problems.  If they had matched me with an atheist forget it, I could not have gotten past that.  Considering how mismatched some of the couples have been on other compatibility issues, could they really have gotten this one right every time?  Or are they just choosing not to focus on that?

[okerry]

There are a lot of people who call themselves "spiritual" atheists but for the life of me I can't justify that at all because spiritual things imply a world beyond the natural one and if you're an atheist you don't believe in that.  If the show is so decidedly non-spiritual, why bother hiring an atheist who calls himself a spiritual adviser?  It makes absolutely no sense to me.

 

 

Well, technically, a "theist" is someone who believes in a god or gods, and an "a-theist" is someone who does not believe in a god or gods.

 

I do think you can be spiritual without believing in god/s. For many, spirituality simply means attempting to find your place in a much larger world and figuring out how to be in harmony with it, especially with the natural world.

 

So, a religious person might celebrate Christmas by attending church service. A "spiritual atheist" might go to a place like Stonehenge at the winter solstice and watch as the first rays of sunlight reach the solstice marker. Both are moving experiences that allow a person to contemplate their place in the world; one involves a god, and the other does not. Just one way to look at it. :) 

[Snarklepuss]

Considering that the word "spiritual" has the word "spirit" in it, I reserve the right to disagree with those who use it but don't believe in "spirits".  If they want to contemplate the universe and their place in the world by going to Stonehenge that's great, and more power to them for doing so, but in that case I don't think they should call it a spiritual exercise because what they're doing doesn't involve communing with spirits, since they don't believe in them.  I think they are using the term inappropriately.  Perhaps they should call themselves something else, like meditating atheists. Even definitions of the word spiritual do not include a secularized usage.  Sorry to split hairs, but these things matter when your academic specialty is metaphysics and the philosophy of religion.

[operalover]

One definition of spiritual is spir·it·u·al

ˈspiriCH(əw)əl/
adjective
1.
of, relating to, or affecting the human spirit or soul as opposed to material or physical things.
"I'm responsible for his spiritual welfare"
synonyms: nonmaterial, incorporeal, intangible;

 

It does not have to mean "spirits"  as in god or ghost-like creatures. 

[Snarklepuss]

The "spirit" that is being referred to in that definition is synonymous with the "soul" which is something that atheists who don't believe in a spirit world don't generally believe in either.  To be an atheist but believe in a human soul would be very inconsistent.  They don't believe that people have a soul because they generally reject anything intangible and a soul is technically a part of the intangible, unprovable spirit world that they reject.  Atheists, if they are consistent with their own beliefs, hold that people display personalities, but they don't have souls.  These personalities which we call a part of our "selves" are nothing more than the sum total of our mental states and behaviors which are products of the unique chemistry of our brains plus how our environments affect us, but technically not more than that.  To them the "you" that we refer to as the "self" is a construct of those observable behaviors but not an entity of itself and definitely not a real "soul" that exists above and apart from those observable behaviors.  If you believe in a human soul or spirit you are believing in something other than the natural, physical, observable, verifiable world.  And you can't have it both ways - believe that humans have souls but not the universe.  That would be inconsistent if you ask me (and most atheists).  The word "spiritual" also does not contain the term "spirit" in the sense of "team spirit".  That's something else and not a part of what constitutes spirituality unless one misuses the term.  "Spirit" can be used in the sense of having good morale or enthusiasm, but again, that's not what the word "spiritual" is defined as.

Edited January 3, 2016 by Snarklepuss

[ClareWalks]

Considering that "spiritual" is a personal self-identification, I think it's a bit rude to say that someone can't be spiritual if they don't believe in god. That's like saying someone can't identify as a woman if they don't wear makeup and skirts. Who are you (the royal "you" in this case) to say someone can't be spiritual?

[okerry]

? Well, I have known atheists who can believe in the concept of a soul, just as they believe in the concept of the mind. "The mind is what the brain does," even though you can't directly see it. You might say that the soul is a very similar thing - that the soul is the energy created when the mind and body interact. For an atheist, the creation of a soul doesn't involve a deity. It doesn't mean that an atheist cannot believe in an intangible concept. They can, and do.

[Zero7]

Atheists believe in the mind because there is evidence for knowledge being stored in the brain and brain = mind.  Most don't believe in souls or spirits that can't be tested and experienced.  I have known many atheists and all of them remain skeptical about nebulous things.  Energy created when mind and body interact is very nebulous and unproven.  It would be just as nebulous to say that spirits exist and are the energy created by all the minds in the world together.  Just because you think it could have a scientific basis doesn't make it testable and provable.  Atheists like objective proof for things before they accept them.

 

I agree with the above that spirits and spirituality are in the realm of religion, not atheism.

[Snarklepuss]

It was not my intention to be rude, my apologies for coming off that way.  Zero7, I agree with you and my experience with atheists has been similar.  The ones I've known have been almost exclusively scientifically minded and wince at a term that is most often associated with religious belief.  Such atheists would want to distance themselves from any atheists who use the word.  I have read a lot of articles to that effect.  I personally have no problem if atheists want to define the term "spirituality" differently from the religious version, although I hope it doesn't insult anyone if I don't accept that definition myself. 

 

I suspect that some people who call themselves spiritual atheists are actually not too far away from belief systems that conceive of an impersonal, non-creative God, or a pantheistic God.  Modern models of God can look very different from the ancient Christian image of the personal God or as Oprah Winfrey once said, "The old man with the long white beard".  Most progressive Christians reject that anthropomorphic image of God today, although they continue to believe in a personal God, myself included.  However, I also believe that God is trans-personal and beyond the personal, and is both imminent and transcendent of the natural world.  I understand pantheists but also theists.  I also don't believe that God necessarily created the universe or did it "in time" either.  The universe or multiverse can actually be seen as eternal, and some theoretical physicists agree with this at least as a possibility, so the idea of creation can become a little unnecessary.  God in my view can still function as the "ground" of creation or the "heart" or "soul" of the natural world, and if seen in that sense is not very far away from what at least some "spiritual atheists" say they accept in some of the articles I've read.  Which leads me to believe that some may have more against what the traditional model of God represents than the idea of God itself, and wouldn't be so against it if it were presented to them in a way that wouldn't offend them.  If shown the philosophy, some of them might actually accept a more modern and less restrictive impersonal/non-creative model of God, as long as it wasn't called "God".  Thus they could continue to call themselves spiritual atheists.  I know of some scientific pantheists who call themselves spiritual atheists.  If they don't believe in a transcendent God but accept the possibility of a "world soul" that exists only in the natural world that could be interpreted by them as atheism (I actually knew a man who ran a website to that effect once).  Me, I would tend to think it sounds a lot like a wholly immanent God.  But truthfully, I think what it means to call oneself a believer or an atheist starts to blur the closer the two start sounding to each other.  And I always say, "A rose by any other name still smells as sweet".

 

This article on the subject is very interesting.  I read this a while back but thought it was relevant to this discussion:

 

http://thehumanist.com/january-february-2014/the-oprah-nyad-affair/

Edited January 6, 2016 by Snarklepuss

[MsPH]

I see a lot of assumptions about atheists in this thread. Seeing as I call myself one, I'd just like to underline that the only thing atheists for sure have in common with other atheists is that we don't believe in deities. That is it, at least to me. There is no atheist ideology or dogma no matter what some may claim. It's simply a lack of belief in something most people seem to not even question for whatever reason. I call myself an atheist, because I do not believe in supreme beings, let alone the kind of supreme beings described by major religions. I wish there was no need for such a word to begin with, since it's silly to define anything by the lack of something, but I suppose all minorities need a label of some sort. This particular label doesn't mean I'm only interested in things that are tangible or that I'm materialistic, far from it. Sure, you can present all kinds of theories about spirits and god-like forces, even ones that sound appealing to an atheist, but they're still just theories and theories need to be proven before they're considered facts. Belief is accepting unproven theories as facts and that's just not my thing and never will be. Hence even modern models of God are out of the question, no matter how nice they may sound. They're all just wild theories to me. 

 

I wouldn't call myself spiritual, but I am interested in the human spirit, whatever it may be, whether it's just chemistry or something our meager brains can't quite grasp. Personal growth is important to me. Anyway, I'd like to quote the wikipedia article on Spirituality:

 

"Houtman and Aupers suggest that modern spirituality is a blend of humanistic psychology, mystical and esoteric traditions and eastern religions."

 

Sounds right up Greg Epstein's alley, so I don't see why he can't call himself a spiritual advisor. He's not advising them on how to summon spirits after all.

Edited January 6, 2016 by MsPH

[Snarklepuss]

Here is the site by the man I mentioned above in which he presents his view of "Scientific Pantheism".  He calls it a "spiritual approach".  Paul Harrison's site is as old as the internet itself and I go back with it almost 20 years.  Back then I was curious about his position and asked him some questions.  He was adamant about being an atheist and that his views did not comprise a belief in God despite calling the cosmos "divine" and himself a pantheist (which is itself not a science and not provable but at the very least a metaphysical position if not a "faith"):

 

http://www.pantheism.net/paul/

 

http://www.pantheism.net/paul/basic-principles.htm

 

Note that his form of pantheism is by no means the only kind.  Some pantheists believe that the cosmos = God.

Edited January 7, 2016 by Snarklepuss

[DangerousMinds]

I see a lot of assumptions about atheists in this thread. Seeing as I call myself one, I'd just like to underline that the only thing atheists for sure have in common with other atheists is that we don't believe in deities. That is it, at least to me. There is no atheist ideology or dogma no matter what some may claim. It's simply a lack of belief in something most people seem to not even question for whatever reason. I call myself an atheist, because I do not believe in supreme beings, let alone the kind of supreme beings described by major religions. I wish there was no need for such a word to begin with, since it's silly to define anything by the lack of something, but I suppose all minorities need a label of some sort. This particular label doesn't mean I'm only interested in things that are tangible or that I'm materialistic, far from it. Sure, you can present all kinds of theories about spirits and god-like forces, even ones that sound appealing to an atheist, but they're still just theories and theories need to be proven before they're considered facts. Belief is accepting unproven theories as facts and that's just not my thing and never will be. Hence even modern models of God are out of the question, no matter how nice they may sound. They're all just wild theories to me. 

 

I wouldn't call myself spiritual, but I am interested in the human spirit, whatever it may be, whether it's just chemistry or something our meager brains can't quite grasp. Personal growth is important to me. Anyway, I'd like to quote the wikipedia article on Spirituality:

 

"Houtman and Aupers suggest that modern spirituality is a blend of humanistic psychology, mystical and esoteric traditions and eastern religions."

 

Sounds right up Greg Epstein's alley, so I don't see why he can't call himself a spiritual advisor. He's not advising them on how to summon spirits after all.

Thank you! I don't think we'll be a minority for too much longer, either.

[Gator Stud]

I think it's weird that an atheist is giving spiritual advice on the show. I find it interesting that we have never seen him giving advice. Has it all been edited? For the record, I have no issues with atheists. My cousin is one, as well as my girlfriend.

[Gator Stud]

Why are blacks with the show paired with each other? For 2 different seasons. I think it would be far more interesting to see how different cultures interact in the context of marriage than the manufactured drama that they have been serving us.

It's 2016. I think people can deal with blacks marrying other races. I know some participants specifically asked not to be with one race (Davina), but still this show should do something different than the boring black couples.

[Nancybeth]

I posted this in the other thread, but I think David and Vanessa could have been an interesting pairing.  I know Vanessa said she dated white men before, not sure how David felt about being part of an interracial couple. 

[Kira53]

I don't think marrying a Black woman would be part of David's fantasy marriage. I don't think he is racist but his current crowd doesn't seem that diverse. I think he would do better with an interracial mate of his own choosing - someone he got attracted to w/o inntending to. David and Vanessa are the two that seemed like they were looking for fairy tale marriage and had the right temperament. Neil would be too odd at first for Vanessa. Not sure she would give him a chance.

Edited cause typing on a Kindle is tough.

Edited February 4, 2016 by Kira53

[kam]

I posted this in the other thread, but I think David and Vanessa could have been an interesting pairing. I know Vanessa said she dated white men before, not sure how David felt about being part of an interracial couple.

Both wanting marriage isn't enough to make this a good match. This would be terrible.

[Kareem]

Both wanting marriage isn't enough to make this a good match. This would be terrible.

Jaclyn might have handled "Friends: Party of 50" and his energy better than Vanessa...

[Neurochick]

 

An answer to why Tres may have  more options than Vanessa might.  

 

Maybe they should have an interracial couple one of these days.

Edited February 11, 2016 by Neurochick

[Evil Queen]

Maybe they should have an interracial couple one of these days.

 

I honestly don't understand why they shouldn't. I know there are some not ok with that still but I would like to see more mix in things. If that is what one prefers in dating and life then so what. Don't match 2 people because this is what their race is and their issues are similar. Its just not working at all. And I did watch the video. Very enlightening on many points she brought up. Which in turn with the points she made on women not wanting to go out on interracial dates, do you think this is part of why we don't see the mix on shows like this? Or a combo of that and they don't want to risk making some viewers uncomfortable? 

[Gator Stud]

I honestly don't understand why they shouldn't. I know there are some not ok with that still but I would like to see more mix in things. If that is what one prefers in dating and life then so what. Don't match 2 people because this is what their race is and their issues are similar. Its just not working at all. And I did watch the video. Very enlightening on many points she brought up. Which in turn with the points she made on women not wanting to go out on interracial dates, do you think this is part of why we don't see the mix on shows like this? Or a combo of that and they don't want to risk making some viewers uncomfortable?

I think they don't want to make viewers who hold on to racial traditions, uncomfortable. Theoretically, this show is supposed to have consumption. Showing black male having sex and sleeping in bed with a,white woman might make some uncomfortable. I actually think they would gain viewers if the did this. They do have interracial couples on this show, but blacks seem to be excluded from the opportunity.

 

An answer to why Tres may have  more options than Vanessa might.  

 

Maybe they should have an interracial couple one of these days.

Black women should just date the best men they could find regardless of race. I'm dating a white woman who is a doctor. I'm not going to trade her in for a black woman who is not as good for me, just because she is black. I think people should just date whoever is the best option, regardless of race.

[Evil Queen]

I think they don't want to make viewers who hold on to racial traditions, uncomfortable. Theoretically, this show is supposed to have consumption. Showing black male having sex and sleeping in bed with a,white woman might make some uncomfortable. I actually think they would gain viewers if the did this. They do have interracial couples on this show, but blacks seem to be excluded from the opportunity.

Black women should just date the best men they could find regardless of race. I'm dating a white woman who is a doctor. I'm not going to trade her in for a black woman who is not as good for me, just because she is black. I think people should just date whoever is the best option, regardless of race.

 

We have yet to see anyone that is Japanese/Chinese/etc as well. I think because with like Neil being Indian that he could pass as white if he wanted is why some may not see it as interracial. Yet Davina was and married White Sean. So yes they have but it seems to be only those types. I'd rather see a nice mix of those with different races. It doesn't even have to be a black person with a white person. It could be any mix and it would be a nice change to things I think.

   And good for you. I think that is how it should be. You date whoever is the best option for you no matter what. There is no reason one shouldn't but then I have grown up in a place where we have all kinds of different people and no one would look at you weird for it. LOL 

[Neurochick]

Black women should just date the best men they could find regardless of race. I'm dating a white woman who is a doctor. I'm not going to trade her in for a black woman who is not as good for me, just because she is black. I think people should just date whoever is the best option, regardless of race.

 

 

You are totally right, unfortunately, a lot of black men don't feel that way.  I have hard black men say they think black women are the "backbone of the community" and shit like that, we're the ones who have to hold it all together.  A lot of black women get guilt tripped into not dating interracially.  (thankfully my family didn't have THAT belief)

Edited February 12, 2016 by Neurochick

[Snarklepuss]

 

An answer to why Tres may have  more options than Vanessa might.  

 

Maybe they should have an interracial couple one of these days.

 

I saw the video.  Interestingly, until relatively recently Jewish men were 3 times as likely to "marry out" of their faith, but in the decade and and a half between the year 2000 and now the numbers have reversed and now Jewish women slightly lead Jewish men in intermarriage.  I bring that up because perhaps the numbers will even out one day for blacks.  One can only hope!

 

I agree that the show should have an interracial couple.  I don't know what the big deal is.  I've seen numerous interracial couples featured on TV in the past several years, especially on wedding-related shows like "Four Weddings" and "Say Yes to the Dress".  So I don't think they're not doing it to avoid any segment of society's disapproval because that's almost a non-issue on TV anymore, especially with shows that attract younger audiences.  I think it might illustrate that perhaps people who "marry out" don't tend to go into it intending to do so but end up just falling into it.  People start out with an ideal of what they want in a person and then fall in love with someone who is a little different than that.  And of course, that's not how this show works.

[biakbiak]

Maybe they should have an interracial couple one of these days

They have had two. Both Davina and Neal have at least one Indian parent. I think both of Davina's parents were Indian/Pakistani; I missed the first few episodes so I am not certain of Neal's exact background.