Hard Polytheism, Soft Polytheism, and Everything In Between

[Freesia]

Project much? I see a lot of people struggling with and chopping and changing their beliefs and systems and asking other people is this or that is a proper way to approach or think about some system. I am unique, as all humans are. There is nothing to reconcile as it just ...is. I don't have a problem with that. And I very infrequently have to 'reconcile' what I believe with any 'community'. As I mentioned before, quite content with the way the world unfolds but curious and I hope, ever learning and changing. And I believe that's a *good* thing.

 
I haven't commented on anything you've said yet because I don't understand why you're bringing this up on this thread instead of starting a new topic. But I feel the line I put in bold needs addressing. Many of us came to this forum because we had experiences that we wanted to discuss with others in a safe place. Some of us do not have like minded people where we live, or do not know where to find them; so we went online for a community.

Branching into an alternate spirituality is not an easy adjustment. I do not believe that processing our experiences within our spiritual/religious path-work to be "chopping and changing our belief systems." We are reconciling our previous notions and spiritual frameworks with our new experiences and making informed decisions for our own spiritual/religious foundations. This is called Pathworking. We do it because we must and I can't tell you why we must do this. In the process we bounce ideas off each other and find the actions or in-actions that work the best for our personal work. There is no rule book for Paganism, but there are specific groups. The only way to figure out if you belong to a certain group is to read their philosophies and practice how they practice. Yes it is experimental in nature. We rule out what doesn't work and check what does work. That way we know where we should go next in order to figure ourselves out. Paganism is a big umbrella and there is no Sorting Hat.

[carillion]

I haven't commented on anything you've said yet because I don't understand why you're bringing this up on this thread instead of starting a new topic. But I feel the line I put in bold needs addressing. Many of us came to this forum because we had experiences that we wanted to discuss with others in a safe place. Some of us do not have like minded people where we live, or do not know where to find them; so we went online for a community.

Branching into an alternate spirituality is not an easy adjustment. I do not believe that processing our experiences within our spiritual/religious path-work to be "chopping and changing our belief systems." We are reconciling our previous notions and spiritual frameworks with our new experiences and making informed decisions for our own spiritual/religious foundations. This is called Pathworking. We do it because we must and I can't tell you why we must do this. In the process we bounce ideas off each other and find the actions or in-actions that work the best for our personal work. There is no rule book for Paganism, but there are specific groups. The only way to figure out if you belong to a certain group is to read their philosophies and practice how they practice. Yes it is experimental in nature. We rule out what doesn't work and check what does work. That way we know where we should go next in order to figure ourselves out. Paganism is a big umbrella and there is no Sorting Hat.

I don't disagree. However, please read what my post was *responding to* -It was this:

 "To add to this, I think most of us here have already defined our individual needs, accepted their uniqueness compared to others needs, and have defined our own personal systems in conjuction with religion, science and community.

That you haven't yet managed to do this isn't the fault of need, religion, science or community."

This implied that most of the people here, unlike what you have just written,  had already defined , codified and solidified their beliefs and practices which sat happily within the greater reality of their lives and the greater community and that I... had not.
I was simply pointing out what you just did: from reading around it seems many people are far from settled.

[Faemon]

from reading around it seems many people are far from settled.

 
And yet, from what I see, the very thing that started this tangent from the main topic was your identity policing of Freesia's recovering atheism.

[carillion]

And yet, from what I see, the very thing that started this tangent from the main topic was your identity policing of Freesia's recovering atheism.

No. I noted the use of the word 'recovering' . It was explained it was a joke, which I accepted. End of. I think the use of the term 'policing' is both  inaccurate and not a little inflammatory. But I have noticed a tendency to veer into emotional hyperbole here so not surprising.

[Sarah]

No. I noted the use of the word 'recovering' . It was explained it was a joke, which I accepted. End of. I think the use of the term 'policing' is both  inaccurate and not a little inflammatory. But I have noticed a tendency to veer into emotional hyperbole here so not surprising.

 
pretty much all you do is criticise this place and  it's posters. It makes me wonder why you bother to come here if you find it so objectionable?

[RandallS]

But I have noticed a tendency to veer into emotional hyperbole here so not surprising.

I've found this is common when one person/side is discussing something intimate and important to them while the other person/side is discussing it with clinical detachment. Of course, I've also found it fairly common in online discussions in general because emotion often doesn't come through nearly as well as it does in face-to-face conversations so people resort to hyperbole to get the emotion noticed.

[Juniperberry]

I don't disagree. However, please read what my post was *responding to* -It was this:

 "To add to this, I think most of us here have already defined our individual needs, accepted their uniqueness compared to others needs, and have defined our own personal systems in conjuction with religion, science and community.

That you haven't yet managed to do this isn't the fault of need, religion, science or community."

This implied that most of the people here, unlike what you have just written,  had already defined , codified and solidified their beliefs and practices which sat happily within the greater reality of their lives and the greater community and that I... had not.
I was simply pointing out what you just did: from reading around it seems many people are far from settled.

 
What I said is that most of us have identified our needs, accepted them, and have allowed room for those needs within science, religion, and community. The words "belief" and practice" were never said.

[Juniperberry]

No. I noted the use of the word 'recovering' . It was explained it was a joke, which I accepted. End of. I think the use of the term 'policing' is both  inaccurate and not a little inflammatory. But I have noticed a tendency to veer into emotional hyperbole here so not surprising.

 

What's wrong with emotion?

You don't think people should be overly emotional about religion/spirituality. You don't think they should see a need in their lives for religion/spirituality.

You probably think it'd be OK to be emotional about family, or pets, or art... But family and pets and art are religion/spirituality to some people. So I'd really like to know what you think religion is.


My daughter hangs around a girl whose family is Baptist so she comes home repeating all these ideas. Like last night at bath time she was telling me that we love God first, then family, then friends. I told her that I don't think God is over here, family is over there. That god is in family, he's the love you feel, the intangible. (Back to relationships.) But for you, seeing a need for that and feeling emotional about that would be wrong?

[Juniperberry]

No. I noted the use of the word 'recovering' . It was explained it was a joke, which I accepted. End of.

I'm probably way too cranky and emotional to be replying to this so much (trying to quit smoking), but I went back to page 6 because that was obviously not the 'end of' this thread.

You said that belief in imaginary/invisible beings is not a need in children, and so similarly religion (which is all about belief in imaginary/invisible things apparently) isn't a need in people. You asked how it has any positive effects on a child's upbringing, and how purposefully teaching the non-existence of such things could have a detrimental impact.

I'm not sure if you're aware, but as one Harvard study shows, children who have imaginary/invisible friends are normally more creative, have superior vocabularies, are more popular, and have better cognitive and emotional skills then those who don't. [http://www.wjh.harvard.edu/~lds/pdfs/taylor1993.pdf]

Children who do not have imaginary friends (either from nature or nurture) score lower on emotional intelligence tests, have a harder time distinguishing reality from fantasy, and  have a harder time comprehending cross-perspectives. [Play and Development: Evolutionary, Sociocultural, and Functional Perspectives]

So, yes, it would seem that the ability to develop a rich, inner world of invisible/imaginary friends is needed for better intellectual-emotional development in children.

[carillion]

I've found this is common when one person/side is discussing something intimate and important to them while the other person/side is discussing it with clinical detachment. Of course, I've also found it fairly common in online discussions in general because emotion often doesn't come through nearly as well as it does in face-to-face conversations so people resort to hyperbole to get the emotion noticed.

This is a very astute observation and one I should have internalized long ago given my online activity. One does have to make things 'bigger than life' sometimes when our usual avenues of expressing conviction as in 'real life' cannot be used.
 Thanks. I will remember this and it will serve as a useful 'brake' when I respond.

[carillion]

I'm probably way too cranky and emotional to be replying to this so much (trying to quit smoking), but I went back to page 6 because that was obviously not the 'end of' this thread.

You said that belief in imaginary/invisible beings is not a need in children, and so similarly religion (which is all about belief in imaginary/invisible things apparently) isn't a need in people. You asked how it has any positive effects on a child's upbringing, and how purposefully teaching the non-existence of such things could have a detrimental impact.

I'm not sure if you're aware, but as one Harvard study shows, children who have imaginary/invisible friends are normally more creative, have superior vocabularies, are more popular, and have better cognitive and emotional skills then those who don't. [http://www.wjh.harvard.edu/~lds/pdfs/taylor1993.pdf]

Children who do not have imaginary friends (either from nature or nurture) score lower on emotional intelligence tests, have a harder time distinguishing reality from fantasy, and  have a harder time comprehending cross-perspectives. [Play and Development: Evolutionary, Sociocultural, and Functional Perspectives]

So, yes, it would seem that the ability to develop a rich, inner world of invisible/imaginary friends is needed for better intellectual-emotional development in children.

I couldn't get the link to work. But I think this one study ( it may have been a meta analysis but I don't know because I can't get to it) is a dangerous thing to suggest as a basic principle.

It's going to make a lot of children and parents unhappy to think the *lack* of an imaginary friend means a child will fail or fall short in intellectual and/or emotional development. Most parents would like to know how to help their children develop at an optimal level and just *how* do you think they can do this if basing it one this one study/idea?

I suspect (but again, cannot know) that the object of this study was to reassure people whose children had imaginary friends that their child was perfectly 'normal' and that possessing a rich imagination is not a bad thing. I do not think the study is suggesting that children who do *not* have imaginary friends are therefore lacking and less intelligent and emotionally stable and so *need* to somehow acquire imaginary friends in the interest of optimal development.

And I think this : "Children who do not have imaginary friends (either from nature or nurture) score lower on emotional intelligence tests, have a harder time distinguishing reality from fantasy, and  have a harder time comprehending cross-perspectives." ...

is complete bullshit. It's basically saying that children who do not have imaginary friends ( and that is the majority of children ) are less intelligent, emotionally stable and seemingly lacking in the ability to comprehend reality.

[Juniperberry]

I couldn't get the link to work. But I think this one study ( it may have been a meta analysis but I don't know because I can't get to it) is a dangerous thing to suggest as a basic principle.

It's going to make a lot of children and parents unhappy to think the *lack* of an imaginary friend means a child will fail or fall short in intellectual and/or emotional development. Most parents would like to know how to help their children develop at an optimal level and just *how* do you think they can do this if basing it one this one study/idea?

Well, it's not one study. If that link doesn't work you can just do a google search and find it-- and many, many more-- confirming those same findings. You could also find one that refutes it and cite those studies, rather than disagreeing based on just your feelings and opinions.

I think people who do look at the world in black and white will think it's an either/or situation, while there are others who recognize a middle ground of reality, in which, when things are put into perspective, value in concepts can be found outside of the extremes.

I suspect (but again, cannot know) that the object of this study was to reassure people whose children had imaginary friends that their child was perfectly 'normal' and that possessing a rich imagination is not a bad thing. I do not think the study is suggesting that children who do *not* have imaginary friends are therefore lacking and less intelligent and emotionally stable and so *need* to somehow acquire imaginary friends in the interest of optimal development.

The purpose of the study was to examine theory of the mind, and find solutions and resources for everyone. The point isn't to establish b&w's (example: religion or no religion?,  imaginary friends or non-imaginary friends?, needs and not needs? ) but to find a reasonably accessible middle ground where all different people can have their unique needs met. Where the qualities of those with imaginary friends can be found and modified for those who do not naturally tend to develop that type of creativity, and vice versa.

And I think this : "Children who do not have imaginary friends (either from nature or nurture) score lower on emotional intelligence tests, have a harder time distinguishing reality from fantasy, and  have a harder time comprehending cross-perspectives." ...

is complete bullshit. It's basically saying that children who do not have imaginary friends ( and that is the majority of children ) are less intelligent, emotionally stable and seemingly lacking in the ability to comprehend reality.

 
Actually, if you read some studies, you would see that the majority of children do have imaginary friends. How many children in the US believe in Santa Claus? The Easter Bunny? Angels? Ghosts?

When children have these concepts in their life, they are more likely to apply critical thinking. "How does Santa fly his reindeer in one night?" Then they analyze possibilities and realities and fact and magic to find a probable and complex answer.

If children are actively discouraged from this type of mental development, then they can develop problems in reasoning and creativity. Those in this thread who said they were 'recovering' from atheism indicated that this may have been a factor.

Unlike you, my purpose in this thread isn't to determine a right or wrong answer, or to define absolutes, but to allow for a middle ground in which there is no right or wrong or absolutes.

[Juniperberry]

The purpose of the study was to examine theory of the mind, and find solutions and resources for everyone. The point isn't to establish b&w's (example: religion or no religion?,  imaginary friends or non-imaginary friends?, needs and not needs? ) but to find a reasonably accessible middle ground where all different people can have their unique needs met. Where the qualities of those with imaginary friends can be found and modified for those who do not naturally tend to develop that type of creativity, and vice versa.

I just realized the awesome relevance in this discussion to that of the OT: Soft polytheism, Hard polytheism, and everything in between.

:

[HarpingHawke]

I couldn't get the link to work.

 
Fixed the link so you can read through it! http://www.wjh.harvard.edu/~lds/pdfs/taylor1993.pdf

Most parents would like to know how to help their children develop at an optimal level and just *how* do you think they can do this if basing it one this one study/idea?

[bolding mine]

Just *how* do you think you know this is the only study of its kind out there?

Try searching it. You'll most likely come up with a myriad of other studies. In fact, when I have a bit more time, I'll gather up some links for you.

[carillion]

I think people who do look at the world in black and white will think it's an either/or situation, while there are others who recognize a middle ground of reality, in which, when things are put into perspective, value in concepts can be found outside of the extremes.

The purpose of the study was to examine theory of the mind, and find solutions and resources for everyone. The point isn't to establish b&w's (example: religion or no religion?,  imaginary friends or non-imaginary friends?, needs and not needs? ) but to find a reasonably accessible middle ground where all different people can have their unique needs met. Where the qualities of those with imaginary friends can be found and modified for those who do not naturally tend to develop that type of creativity, and vice versa.




 
Actually, if you read some studies, you would see that the majority of children do have imaginary friends. How many children in the US believe in Santa Claus? The Easter Bunny? Angels? Ghosts?

When children have these concepts in their life, they are more likely to apply critical thinking. "How does Santa fly his reindeer in one night?" Then they analyze possibilities and realities and fact and magic to find a probable and complex answer.

If children are actively discouraged from this type of mental development, then they can develop problems in reasoning and creativity. Those in this thread who said they were 'recovering' from atheism indicated that this may have been a factor.

From the study :

""In summary, the purpose of this research was to explore the feasibility of  interviewing children about IC's as a way to learn more about early fantasy and to determine the best way to encourage children to interact with their IC's in the lab."

"Thus, children who differ in whether or not they create imaginary friends do not differ in their ability to distinguish pretend or real objects or to distinguish fantasy from reality"
 

To be frank, I don't think it's asking too much that if one is going to extrapolate from a rather old study with an n of 12 that there should be an expectation that the research will be presented accurately.

It's better to just state something is your honest opinion than to misrepresent the findings of a study.