Tired of Clinging

Below is ‘Tired of Clinging’ by Richard Bach and below that my response.

It is something I have read many times, especially during the time I spent discussing enlightenment. To me it beautifully illustrates how we stifle ourselves with our stubborn ignorance and how fear prevents many from letting go of credulity and embracing the adventure that is our existence.

Many responses to the question of faith mention science and the things it doesn’t know as if not having answers to everything puts the validity of science into question.

And luckily it still makes me laugh because in truth there is nothing more appealing to the scientific mind than a question that seemingly has no answer. The difference between us and our religious counter parts is we have no need to answer what we cannot, theorize sure but never absolutely and without evidence.

You may think that it is the ones who cling that are the skeptics but in truth they are the ones who believe they know, it was the skeptic who ignored what others believed and trusted in nature, it was the skeptic who embraced the unknown.

Shedding ones credulity will set one free.

 

Not according to Einstein:
" William Hermanns, Albert Einstein, Einstein and the poet: in search of the cosmic man, Brandon Books, 1983, p. 173. Albert Einstein: "(empirical) Knowledge is necessary, too. An intuitive child couldn't accomplish anything without some knowledge. There will come a point in everyone's life, however, where only intuition can make the leap ahead, without ever knowing precisely how. One can never know why, but one must accept intuition as fact." p. 173. Also "For it is intuition that improves the world, not just following the trodden path of thought. Intuition makes us look at unrelated facts and then think about them until they can all be brought together under one law. To look for related facts means holding onto what one has instead of searching for new facts. Intuition is the father of new knowledge, while empiricism is nothing but an accumulation of old knowledge. Intuition, not intellect, is the 'open sesame' of yourself." p. 16."

www.wikipedia.com/intuition (footnote #19)

 

And yet it are the atheist/secular humanists who are the ones who cling to what science "knows", so nice rhetoric, but a Orwellian belief you possess nonetheless.

 

The only thing you have done here is support my position. Would you like to actually refute it or just stick with, "it's true because I said so."?

Tell me how does one cling to a method that thrives on new information and change? Or are you suggesting that because we subscribe to say the theory that the earth revolves around the sun we are "clinging to what science "knows"."

You have said a whole lot of nothing your response.

 

Your ability to misconstrue and misunderstand is one I stand in awe of.

It was intuition that lead the creature to stop clinging, I mean honestly I have to thank you for this post because it supports my position perfectly.

 

My proof is in your response.

 

No your proof is in your head, if it wasn't you could actually show it to someone other than yourself.

 

To not be a clinger, you sure do seem to be clinging--as you now have demonstrated twice.

 

Welll, I am glad you appreciate it, as I do also. But my appreciation is for other reasons.
1: Intuition is not accepted by the majority of the scientific community as valid information.
2: The true skeptic is (as pointed out in the quotation) is the one who stays so locked in his/her already known knowledge bank that they refuse to consider information that is not already known. Such people as non-theists fit that category perfectly well.
"Intuition makes us look at unrelated facts and then think about them until they can all be brought together under one law. To look for related facts means holding onto what one has instead of searching for new facts. Intuition is the father of new knowledge, while empiricism is nothing but an accumulation of old knowledge. "

Pay close attention to that last sentence above.

 

Isn't it kind of silly to either base a viewpoint or a debate on a fairy tale?

 

yes indeed, it is!

yet we see theists base not just viewpoints, but entire worldviews, on fairy tales. stubbornly clinging to the myth in mortal fear of change.

 

That is your opinion. There is at least some evidentiary basis for theological views, as dubious as you may think it is.

 

The interesting thing in your thread is that the message of the story is a spiritual one. If we pay attention to what past spiritual leaders have preached they all seem to minimize the importance of materialism and conventionalism. No matter what sort of lifestyle we live we have to cope with basic needs and the expectations of others, but when we place too much importance on needs and expectations we lose something very important, we lose the adventure of life.

Clinging to the rocks in this story represents clinging to safety. Its what we do when we carry on in our lives as everyone expects us to. Its prizing the things that make life comfortable over what makes life meaningful.

That certainly could apply to a person raised religiously who cannot believe and fears speaking their mind. But it could apply to a person raised secular who feels moved religiously and is afraid to admit it also.

 

First you state that the story is 'spiritual' (whatever that means, a definition would be helpful), then you go on to identify that it's actually about adventure. Adventure is entirely prosaic, and 'of this world', so there's considerable confusion in what you're saying.

Meantime, I would agree that it pertains to adventure, and taking considered risks. But I don't agree with the idea that there are many, if any, atheists out there feeling secretly drawn to religion. You'll find far ... FAR more going the other way - to the power of ten, so this story is naturally about them. The number of atheists harbouring secret longings for sky fairy worship would be so infinitesimally small that no parables are warranted

 

and yours, evidently. I refer you to your own post.

but, if there is evidence for a theological view, I'd love to hear it. if not, we're talking fairytale. and as you say, it'd be silly to base a viewpoint on such a thing

 

evidentiary basis for theology? I would be most interested in finding out what evidence is available.

 

nah, my post is well explained. Read it again if you need to.

Lots of secular children have grown up feeling a need for something, we have plenty of examples of them joining cults and so forth. I suspect more than you think have joined churches.

Having an adventure is not the same as risking your life. Read the story again if you need to.

 

So fictional literature is useless? What about pondering our existence in order to gain a broader perspective, see our faults and attempt to correct them?

If you are saying that philosophical queries are inherently silly then I disagree.

 

This is why I created this thread. Every time I have in the past we end up seeing perspectives cross over one another and the result is always interesting.

Tell me, how does the fact that the materialistic conventional creatures down stream end up seeing the free one as a miracle, as a savior fit into the idea that this is a spiritual story? Of course we have no real definition of spiritual but the creature tells them that he is not a savior, that his freedom is not a miracle, that they are no different from him. In his attempt to free them from there dogmatic beliefs he fails because their faith is too strong. They do not have faith in themselves and nature the way the one carried in the current does and so they make into more than he is, they make him a god who will save them.

In a way it represents safety but more so it represents a narrow vision, it represents a closed mind.

"Each creature in its own manner clung tightly to the twigs and rocks at the river bottom, for clinging was their way of life, and resisting the current what each had learned from birth."

They knew nothing else because they believed they knew enough, perhaps all that was needed to know. Of course their answers were ignorant because how could they not be, what information of the outside world did they have. Even their knowledge of the world around them was false.

It can apply to any dogmatic ideology.

But do not compare the open-minded nature of secularism which is starkly against dogma with religion.

Every atheist/agnostic (etc) that I know sees religion as a anchor preventing the journey, the adventure because it picks a spot on the river bed and clings to it with all it's might. It claims knowledge from the onset of civilization and says this is the truth and everything that rejects it is false or simply ignored.

I love that there are many things I don't know, I love drifting down the stream free from the bonds of credulity.

Of course this is just my take.

 

Imagine living your entire life with All the Answers, from birth. Not a single surprise that isn't encapsulated within, and an intrinsic part of, this certainty. No journey, no adventure, just the same old spot in the river, from day 1 til your final day.

Such a life denies that most precious of things - and the thing such folk talk up at every opportunity - our humanity. Our thirst for knowledge, adventure, new horizons, growth, change, adaptation, expansion, exploration, etc - all the things that make us special, in other words. In the quest to highlight our specialness - with claims of being gifted by god with our humanity - they cancel us out. We become, in such a place in the river, mute pebbles. Dead, lifeless.

 

The spiritual is what opposes material. Intangible possessions like love, trust, friendship and so on are all spiritual in nature. Is god necessary for you to feel something you cannot touch? I don't think so. So spiritual does not equal religious.

The creatures see the free one as a savior but are unwilling to follow its example. I hate to bring it up, but to theist the river represents god and releasing from the rocks an act of pure faith. Religion to the clingers is the act of worshiping the free one, religion to the free one is trusting god. The clingers have faith in the rocks to be sure, and have reason to. The rocks in the story are not illusions, clinging to them provides security from being bashed against the bottom in the current. The free one gets bashed plenty at first and only rises above after taking a good thrashing.

I agree that the ones clinging to the bottom could be dogmatic theist. If religion is a conventional part of their lives which provides security and letting go of a false religion endangers a persons family relations, their social standing, their job and so on then it fits the bill.

If its just a matter of changing beliefs I guess it could be stretched to mean that, I just have a hard time understanding why anyone would fear something so trivial.

 

Yeah, but it supports his perfectly too. Bach was really good at that, he'd mastered the art of Eastern Religions and knew how to sound really deep by actually saying stuff that was meaningless.

 

Where did I say that?

 

Read the Bible, NT.

 

Why? What does an old book have to do with this evidence you mentioned?