Washington Post journalist, author and Washington DC insider, Sally Quinn founded and co-moderates On Faith, a blog from the Washington Post and Newsweek. Co-moderated by Newsweek editor and bestselling author Jon Meacham and hosted by a panel of renowned religious scholars of all denominations, On Faith is the first worldwide, interactive discussion about religion and its impact on global life.
While researching an article about religion in Washington prior to the 2000 presidential campaign, Quinn noticed that while religion had an enormous influence on worldwide politics, it was a taboo subject in our nation’s capital. Following 9/11, Quinn’s interest in religion grew and her passion to understand it from a personal and political perspective took on new urgency and focus.
Over the past decade, Quinn has pursued a religious education with the same drive and rigor she once gave to politics. Leveraging her rolodex from 30 years as a columnist, she sought out spiritual mentorship from religious leaders and scholars such as Archbishop Desmond Tutu, Reverend Jim Anderson, Father Bryan Hehir and John Esposito. To gain emotional and spiritual perspective, she traveled to many of the world’s holy sites in Rome, Jerusalem, Bethlehem, Tibet, Delhi, Cairo, Ethiopia and Istanbul, and began attending several religious services and ceremonies a week at churches, temples and mosques.
Quinn has written four books: “We’re Going to Make You a Star,” about her short-lived experience as a co-anchor for “CBS Morning News”; “Regrets Only,” her first novel; “Happy Endings,” its sequel, and “The Party,” in which Quinn offers an insider’s look at Washington entertaining and a personal view of the value of friendship. She is currently working on a book about religion in Washington.
Close.
Sally Quinn
Washington Post reporter
Washington Post journalist, author and Washington DC insider, Sally Quinn founded and co-moderates On Faith, a blog from the Washington Post and Newsweek. Co-moderated by Newsweek editor and bestselling author Jon Meacham and hosted by a panel of renowned religious scholars of all denominations, On Faith is the first worldwide, interactive discussion about religion and its impact on global life.
more »
I can only speak as a believer, and from my own experience. God's ways are mysterious, way above the imagination of human beings. God seeks to communicate with human beings in as many ways as He can - through dreams, through the words of other human beings, through symbols... You were asking God for a sign and you remained open without any preconceived notions about the answer, and He communicated through a symbol that you understood. It is not magic. It is real. I consider it a religious experience, in spite of the fact a rational mind may try to explain it away rationally.
"It was the most important thing that ever happened to me…In the end maybe it will make me a better writer because I’ve become more empathetic and more sympathetic than I ever was before.”
Dear Ms. Quinn,
I read the above in your bio, and thought just like the maze story, all of us can tell good myths about ourselves and spin them into anything we want to believe.
As for your empathy and sympathy, I have some experience of that. As a mother I shared a waiting room with you at Children's Hospital. My child had relapsed with cancer and we were waiting to have an emergency MRI. We were told that we had to wait for a boy with a migraine to have his. All of this was fine; we were used to waiting.
For an hour my five-year-old daughter and I found hidden words in puzzles, read books, played tic-tac-toe. You sat directly across from us. There were only three of us. I tried to catch your eye, Mom-to-Mom, but you didn't acknowledge our presence or smile at a very sick, very sweet, very loud little girl. You had a pile of magazines -- freebees sent to you from Vanity Fair, etc. When the nurse came to get you, you didn't offer me any of your bounty; waiting room Moms usually share; waiting room Moms are usually incredibly empathetic.
What I've learned since my daughter died is that it's easy to claim you've had a life-changing experience, but if you don't walk the walk, you can't talk the talk.
Now, let's see if this get published on your blog or if the WP is still censoring.
David, there's a psychological effect to saying anything does what you're saying labyrinths do. In the early 1970's people were wearing pyramid hats sying they helped them do all sorts of things from avoid micro asteroids to better health. The human mine is very vulnerable to that sort of thing.
Are people helped by labyrinths, pyramid hats, lucky charms, that sort of thing? Maybe but it has never been quantified and in not likely to ever be. I'd guess the vast majority of the population believe in some sort of thing like that with most keeping it to themselves. Superstition runs rampant and has ever since there's been any recording it.
Without a doubt witch doctoring is the oldes profession predating the accepted oldest, prostitution by thousands of years. It's a part of our pshche and we're not likely to give it up in spiet of how vulnerable it makes us to conficence scams.
Thanks, again, Merri -- I would just add that for me, spiritual growth is not associated with belief in God and I don't think it ever has been. I feel more joyful and unconstrained now than when religious beliefs were more influential in my life.
I don't see where Zeus comes in, but since I believe faith is personal, I acknowledge your right to interpret how you wish.
To E Favorite and William:
To clarify my beliefs, I am Christian and believe in God, however I continue to seek the truth as to the nature of God. I don't believe in a strict interpretation of the Bible and am probably a polar opposite of Canyon Shearer in this respect. Keeping an open mind about mysteries of the universe that we can't possibly know for certain is how I always try to approach faith. I continue to sort and refine my views by reading, studying, praying, meditating, communal worship, and discussion. I believe that God is bigger and more creative and compassionate and changing than we can ever imagine. Anyone who claims categorically to have an unquestioning grasp on these mysteries, I think is missing opportunities for spiritual growth and the joys that can come from it. Likewise, a narrow focus on so-called "endtimes" precludes a life of seeking and growth in the here and now.
Sally, what if your experience is neither magical or spiritual. What if like Plato thought this earth is a "form" or an imperfect representation of a perfect place. What if our souls are the same, we bear the imprint of a creator. And because of that our souls long for truth. The Labyrinth simply is a tool to see that truth. Thank you for your column.
E Favorite, have you seen the essay on how to find God at http://www.hoax-buster.org page 10? He's claiming that God is owned, a piece of property and that scientists can invent God and take God over. He's talking about "Creator God" I'm sure and not the lesser gods.
Does man have the power to create matter from nothing? Will man ever have that power? What will man do with that power should it come to pass? What will the first man to do that claim he is?
"Squander No More U.S. Lives in Iraq"
How could anyone object? But why keep that favor for just those in Iraq? Squander no more lives anywhere for any reason. That should fix the problem. But if we are to live, then we are to die. Even sitting in my chair, I might die. One can only ask Christ to return and take this burden from us. It is too much. We can not hope for better.
Then I thought that to evaluate something, it is useful to know its purpose. If I see a man plunge a blade into another, it helps to know if he is a killer or a doctor. The thought came that of the three important vultures - faith and hope and charity, that love is the most important. I know. It was not one of the three. But I prize it above all others.
To live a life with love, I need to have faith and hope and charity. To support our President I have to have faith that what he is doing is for a purpose and that to win in Iraq will lead to peace. We have three choices here. We can leave without ending the fighting in Iraq, which will be fine for our troops but leave the pain to others. We can continue doing what has not worked well. Or we could find a way to win quickly and bring peace. To chose the last path, we have to have hope that we can win and know how to win. We need charity to spend our wealth for others. And we need faith.
To say our choices are to leave, surge or have the status quo is to ignore the outcomes. It is to say all possible futures are evil and doomed. I reject that analysis. To live without thought of the future or to think that it is hopeless is not the way I want to live. I want faith and hope and charity and most of all to remember that of these - the most important is still love.
To me, your second message is notably different in tone from your first one. The first one seems much more like an assertion – people who don’t look to God will ultimately go nowhere (paraphrasing). However, the second post includes the important qualifier “in my experience” suggesting that this is what you’ve found works for you, not that you are sure that others “must” see it this way in order to find answers to life’s questions.
In the second post, you’ve also defined God in a much more general way than I took it in your first post. My problem, I know, but I think in our society, “God” is usually meant as the biblical God. People often use a non-religious term like “higher power” (or “benign force,” as you did the second time) when not limiting meaning to the biblical God.
Also, I’m used to hearing religious people make pronouncements, based on biblical teachings (or their interpretation of them) – with no other evidence or no personal understanding of the people they are addressing. To me, that’s what your first post sounded like.
JAMES- ANNE O was gently chastising me for being arrogant and judgemental in that i was stating sally's intentions in a negative way- and if it was or was not an apt analysis on my part- it was still unneccessary for me to express it that way-
shes just too classy to say that and so instead has taken heat on herself for it-
r maybe im being arrogant and thinking the world revolves around me and she WASNT talking to me-
in either case i felt guilt at my ungracious remarks-
i dont have to express every piece of osmething my brain spits out even tho i do but i shouldnt be insulting
"if you had a knife pressed up against your throat, would it matter one bit if you didn't believe in knives?"
One day a man was out walking and came across a circus being set up. Standing out amid all the bustle was a huge and magnificent elephant tethered to a stout post. Yet the elephant was tied not with thick ropes or heavy chains, but a frayed and dirty piece of string. The man was so amazed at this that he went up and asked how such a thing could be. The person told him that the circus had had the elephant since it was a baby, so small that the string they tied it with was too much for it to break, no matter how hard it tried. The elephant grew and grew, but in its mind the string remained so strong, too strong to break - and so it was.
Anonymous, all morality comes from God, through the Bible and your conscience. If you don't get your morality from the Bible, you're getting it from your conscience, if you're ignoring your conscience, you're not moral.
BGone, if you had a knife pressed up against your throat, would it matter one bit if you didn't believe in knives?
Why would any reasonable person offer only "religious experience" or "magic" as explanations?
Hey, I have a story too. A friend of mine prayed for days that her drug-dealing husband would beat the rap when he got caught red-handed. He did, on a technicality. Now, was that religion, or magic? She cited it to me as a proof that you really can petition the Lord with prayer. She does so without any sense of irony, and does not use it for monetary gain. She also divorced the guy some months later when he started knocking the crap out of her every time he was high. Musta been bad karma, y'know?
"No one ever claimed that Christians are more moral than unbelievers, especially 'atheists'." Carol Shearer apparently doesn't listen to radio/TV preachers or pay attention to the wingnut insistance that all morality comes from the Bible.
Hey Canyon. Good shot. Christians are all sinners by their own admission to say nothing of Dubya saying, "we are all sinners" on the official presidential record.
Can you do this simple logic. Atheists don't believe there is a God. Therefore there are no laws of God to be broken. Sins are the breaking of God's laws. By definition, atheists cannot sin. By definition, Christians are all sinners. Confessing not recommended though.
Satan, God's accurser who does the test of soul on Christians, Jews and Muslims uses a lie detector. Now it's a really good one that can only be fooled by accompolished liars. Telling the truth is not recommended and especially admitting sinning. Satan feeds sinners to a monster that eats them completely out of existence. I can't help but notice that the three great faiths practice lying so you may well get past Satan. Ahteists don't have that problem and therefore atheists have no need to practice lying. Practice hard Canyon for one never knows how good that lie detector might be.
No one ever claimed that Christians are more moral than unbelievers, especially 'atheists'. ON THE CONTRARY. Christians should never judge 'atheists' or think that somehow 'atheists' are worse than them, we can't know their thoughts; only that God said, "All have sinned and fallen short of the Glory of God." It does not say, "All have sinned, especially those lousy, despicable, horrible atheists who nobody likes."
Rather, Christians should err towards Paul when he said, "I am chief among sinners."
To diverge from the path really quickly, many tests show that 'atheists' are on par with the morals of Christians, this shouldn't happen; Christians SHOULD be the most moral people in the world, the fact that evidences could be found otherwise leads me to plead with Christians to listen to this sermon:
sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?currSection=sermonsspeaker&sermonID=2230517301
But more importantly, the morals are not what we base a religion on, at least not a good religion. Religion is not the way to live your life, but rather what happens when you die.
All have sinned and fallen short of the Glory of God. This means that God expects perfection, holiness, absolute absence of sin in order for you to enter Heaven.
He has a good reason for this, God let man onto the earth; which was similar to Heaven, and the sin of man has destroyed the sanctity and beauty that this world once was.
Transgression of God's Law breeds death; the sins of lying, the sins of stealing, of covetousness, of lust and hatred, of failing to give God due reverence, and especially of failing to do good in the face of evil, will all keep a person from seeing Heaven and put God in the position of the judge, and He will judge all according to their sins.
Each sin you have ever committed is written on your conscience, and when God opens the book of your conscience, every lie from every day, in EVERY context, not just the white lies told to save someone’s life, but the blatant, shamefaced lies which were woven in deceit in order to deceive. Peter tells us that one sin is damnable, for by one sin was death entered into the world, and therefore, no sin will be allowed into Heaven.
Fortunately for the Christian, and the soon to be Christian, when their book of the conscience is opened, the pages will be blank, because the Blood of Christ cleanses these things; God will be able to allow the Christian into Heaven because their sins have been forgiven, their heart has been born anew, and the merits of Christ have been attributed to their sake.
It is not an issue of morality, but rather an issue of redemption. The lives we live on earth are but wisps of vapor that exist for a moment, and then they are gone, after death it is appointed the judgment.
If the saving graces of Christ have not found you, I plead with you to reach out to Christ, to receive His Blessing; Repent of your sins, and trust that Christ will deliver you to Heaven; not for a better life now, but so that you may know God and God you, and that the doors will be open to you when you knock on Heavens gate.
Thanks for paying attention. A word I haven't used yet to describe the faiths of Buddhism and Hinduism is 'coloring book' religions. You make these two religions out to FIT yourself, not to seek enlightenment or to improve yourself in any way.
It's like if I have a huge affliction for chocolate cake, I would say, "Buddha endorses the chocolate cake." Even if I had no reference for that what-so-ever.
Hinduism fits the description because there are more Hindu gods than there are people in the United States.
Because of the millions of individual belief systems that all constitute Buddhism, Hinduism, and even Taoism, we could argue various ideologies all day, and in the end, we would both be right, because these religions have strayed from their origins.
That said, Taoism was formalized by Lao te Tzu, but his pure faith in what was unknown is the beginnings of Hinduism. Taoism knows that we are born, that we die, and that in the middle we live in creation. It makes no presuppositions to a cycle of rebirths. Despite the fact that the most prolific writers on Taoism lived long after the formalization of Hinduism, the merits of Taoism are readily evident, and at the beginning of the mush of Hinduism.
The three quotes I selected on Buddha are only the most damning to his character; I assure you there are many more that show the man had no concept of enlightenment nor of the religion that has sprouted up from his life. For example, I could get up and preach about not being arrogant and being tolerant of all of the worlds religions to the point of silence...but the true test of my message is the extent which I act out my message, in which case, I say, "Avoid haughtiness, and be tolerant of other religions only in as much as we are all being human in need of redemption."
Your post was well written and represented, thank you for asking me to clarify. To segway, your sentence that all are vulnerable to temptation and sin is what I'd like to respond to everyone else with.
Thanks, Sally, for a nice story. It's easy for me (and others) to call it a coincidence, but I'm sure if it happened to me I wouldn't. I suppose you have to be there.
I'd like to respond to Canyon here, on the Buddhist-related conversation that's going on. First off, in reading your chronology, I'm not so sure about your drawing a line between Taoism and Hinduism. It seems to be that Taoism originated in 3-4th century China, and Hinduism came out much, much earlier out of polytheistic traditions in India. The Buddha himself was born (a Hindu) about 200 years before the rise of official taoism, and in a far distant place. Later, much later, Taoism and Buddhism merge together, but their origins are pretty separate.
Also, I don't particularly care for the way in which you've misrepresented the Buddha's quotes there - one can take a single quote and really interpret the heck out of it. The Buddha certianly didn't claim to be a god, even if he did claim to know a lot, and if you ask any monk if Siddhartha Gotama is alive today, the answer is unquestionably no. The inspiring thing about Buddhism is that the Buddha was an ordinary person, like you or me - he was not selected by forces above like Muhammed, nor was he born special, like Jesus - instead, his is a state to which we all can aspire.
All this being said, I'm quite solidly an agnostic, although I'm living in a majority-Buddhist country and working with many monks. In practice, they're similar to priests and preachers - vulnerable to the same sorts of temptations and sins, sometimes capable of profundity.
So, Canyon, I'd invite you to clarify your information a bit.
"It was the most important thing that ever happened to me…In the end maybe it will make me a better writer because I’ve become more empathetic and more sympathetic than I ever was before.”
Dear Ms. Quinn,
I read the above in your bio, and thought just like the maze story, all of us can tell good myths about ourselves and spin them into anything we want to believe.
As for your empathy and sympathy, I have some experience of that. As a mother I shared a waiting room with you at Children's Hospital. My child had relapsed with cancer and we were waiting to have an emergency MRI. We were told that we had to wait for a boy with a migraine to have his. All of this was fine; we were used to waiting.
For an hour my five-year-old daughter and I found hidden words in puzzles, read books, played tic-tac-toe. You sat directly across from us. There were only three of us. I tried to catch your eye, Mom-to-Mom, but you didn't acknowledge our presence or smile at a very sick, very sweet, very loud little girl. You had a pile of magazines -- freebees sent to you from Vanity Fair, etc. When the nurse came to get you, you didn't offer me any of your bounty; waiting room Moms usually share; waiting room Moms are usually incredibly empathetic.
What I've learned since my daughter died is that it's easy to claim you've had a life-changing experience, but if you don't walk the walk, you can't talk the talk.
Now, let's see if this get published on your blog or if the WP is still censoring.
Oops! You're right. It seems it was Einstein is the one who said that, or words to that effect. Here's from the 3 Quarks a Day blog:
"When Albert Einstein was asked what he would do if the measurements of bending starlight at the 1919 eclipse contradicted his general theory of relativity, he famously repliedVonnegut, "Then I would feel sorry for the good Lord. The theory is correct." What he meant was that the theory is far too beautiful to be wrong"
But that name "Vonnegut" doesn't appear in the statement on the blog. I have no idea where it came from. So please don't assume that Einstein was saying that to Vonnegut.
Just as there are about 80 books out right now showing how people are just as moral when they are atheists as believers
there are about 50 books about the human, evolutionarily developed, ability to read other people's facial expressions, and once we started to talk, verbal expressions.
TOTALLY NATURAL> nothing SUPERnatural about it.
loads of scientific evidence
if you were curious, you could research it yourself.
ANN replies:
I've already pointed out to you that I was *not* assuming that atheists are immoral people. You seem to have misread my mind and thought that I was thinking that.
As for reading books about our supposed "mind-reading" ability, I suggest you read a lot more about the complexities of communication, about the many different ways in which we can and do often misinterpret what other people's words mean.
One of the first things you might learn is that there are two very different sorts of "meanings" -- cognitive ones, which are meanings about what we are thinking to be so or not so, and affective ones which are meanings about our feelings about what we are thinking and meanings about intentions and motives.
What you have done with Ms Quinn's words is assign motives for her speech acts which she doesn't speak about explicitly, nor as far as I can see, has even suggested by her words. You certainly projected a thought into my head which I wasn't thinking -- the bit about atheists being immoral. You imply that you *knew* that I was thinking that atheists are immoral. See -- you were wrong, James. And you seem to have done the same thing when you tried to interpret Ms Quinn's motives on the basis of the cognitive statements she made. (I might add that you seem to be assuming that Ms Quinn would have only one motive or one set of related motives. It could be that she had many, many motives of various sorts. More oversimplification on your part, James.)
You seem to have a lot to learn about how language works, James. You might find the linguistic analysts interesting. I suggest you start with John Austin's little treasure _How to Do Things with Words_. If you really want to get into the myriads of things that can happen when we use words, you can try Wittgenstein's _Philosophical Investigations_. Between them they'd be a good start for you. Language can bewitch us, sa
'
Or, as you say, if you were curious, you could research it yourself.
CHRIS tells us:
Need to make an important correction to the quote attributed to Richard Feynman by the first commenter. (Had he believed in the afterlife, he'd be rolling in his grave now...) What he really said was:
"It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong."
Posted January 8, 2007 12:37 PM
ANN replies:
Oops! You're right. It seems it was Einstein is the one who said that, or words to that effect. Here's from the 3 Quarks a Day blog:
"When Albert Einstein was asked what he would do if the measurements of bending starlight at the 1919 eclipse contradicted his general theory of relativity, he famously repliedVonnegut, "Then I would feel sorry for the good Lord. The theory is correct." What he meant was that the theory is far too beautiful to be wrong"
I haven't been able to track down the source of that quotation, but I assume the writer didn't make it up. (Perhaps I'm too trusting.) But sidebar on the page I'm quoting f rom claims that Dawkins said of that blog: ""I have placed 3 Quarks Daily at the head of my list of web bookmarks."—Richard Dawkins, Charles Simonyi Professor of the Public Understanding of Science at Oxford University."
Some people liked the article, some didn't. Some are critical, some are not. All get to express their opinions. That's what a forum like this is all about.
My guess is that for most of us, magic and/or religion are whatever we want them to be.
But in that certain parts of the story have been given an almost mystical aura, and that the story contains certain mythical/heroic/religious archetypes (searchng for something, an unusual journey, finding a special or sacred place, a revelation or enlightenement), then I'd say it qualifies as much as anything else I've read.
Whenever I read anything by Sally Quinn, who is a very good writer, or watch her on Hardball, I get the sense that she is always reminding her readers;/viewers that she is somehow better than most people.
Sally Quinn has had a mystical experience, and not while drunk and/or on drugs I presume.
To the unbelievers, if you see a UFO, a mermaid, or an apparition,would you share your "out of the world" experience with us? Even while smoking but not inhaling, even while drinking but not drunk?
Sally,
At the end of your beautiful story you asked us to tell you if your experience was magical or religious. My answer to you is that it does not matter. You had an experience that had a positive impact on you. That's what counts.
Let the cynics and smart alecks who disparaged your sentimental essay with their unkind comments struggle mightily to answer your question. (In silence, hopefully)
I've been blessed with a similar experience and have never bothered to analyze it. It happened and it made my life better. And that's enough.
Thank you.
You write, "It appears you've had some ups and downs so have we all. Seeking comfort from Zeus is not the way to handle them though."
Is that a statement of scientific fact or an article of faith. Could we not establish an empirical study that would demonstrate faith in Zeus did in fact smooth out the ups and downs of life? Out of then thousand subjects wouldn't you expect a certain number to have this happen? Yes, I know that doesn't demonstrate a causality all by itself, but you'd still have to account for it wouldn't you?
I don't mean to be funny. People are not that predictable that we can say "no one can find comfort from Zeus." There was probably a time when there were more Zeus believers, many of which found great comfort in that belief. Perhaps even healing.
I didn't read all the comments posted here, so perhaps someone has already come to the same conclusion as I, which is: the boy would have aced the maze test regardless of whether his mother was in the labyrinth or Walmart. Now, if the boy had gotten lost inside his maze test at the same time his mother found a piece of cheese in the middle of the labyrinth, I'd say the two were somehow connected.
The experience is a given, what she said. The validity, whether or not she had the experience is not the question but rather a mini survey. Time to vote:
a) magic
b) religious
None of the above is not a possible answer. Your experience is not the question. Her experience is not the question. Experiences are not in order. You're lucky for I too have had that kind of experience and you won't have to hear it.
And what kind of presumption does it take, Victoria, for you to be analyzing (derogatorily) Sally because of the story she told about Quinn. It's a bit cynical to believe that everything is self focused and an effort at one upmanship.
Perhaps you know her very well which then may give you more insights into her than the rest of us.
As for me I would try to resist the natural desire to explain. I would try to experience instead. Not all things in this world are explainable--some remain a mystery. And if we are willing to accept that then life is richer and fuller and a hell of a lot more fun.
And in that effort to not explain it, I would also try not to put a religious label on it, although I am a Christian. I get a bit tired of people attributing to God the coincidences of normal life and living.
But I would be thankful for my son Quinn and his success and (I expect) his share of happiness in life, which I am sure you are.
After reading some of the comments I have to come to the article's defense because while reading it I was coming to entirely different conclusions.
I saw it as much as a metaphor of how humans come to faith (whether its thru the Bible, Koran, Buddhist teachings, or a maze {which is a method I believe has been around since the middle ages}).
While I'm entirely agnostic, and don't believe that anything supernatural happened with Sally's son, the faith-experience she had served to make her feel better and is a good unto itself because it "healed" her battered psych.
Isn't this faith? How is her story any different than some of the stuff I've read on these posts by Canyon Shearer?
Merri: "I am not necessarily talking about an anthropomorphic, supernatural being, but a benign force in the universe that you may call anything you like. I call it God." I don't mean to be offensive but let's not live in fantasies, even if it feels better to do so. What's a "benign force"? Is it something like lightning? wind? Is there also an "evil force"? It appears that you have had some ups and downs, so have we all. Seeking comfort from Zeus is not the way to handle them, though. Good luck!
When I was in the military stationed in the desert my wife gave birth to our first son. After his first year he began to not look at us, respond tous, etc...He was diagnost with Autism. He stopped walking and was only in his world.
On a bad day I went out in the middle of no where and prayed for him. Hard. Let me say that I believe-and always have-in God and Jesus. I do not believe in a lot of the hoopla surrounding organized religions.
When I went home that he was responding-he was aware of what was around him. He was activily apart of the world.
My son is 20 years old now. He is still and always will be Autistic but he is an incredibly happy young man. He brings joy to other people. We are told this by people he comes in contact with.
He will be with us the rest of his days but it is easy to see the small miracle given to my family.
More on mind reading. Victoria, who made the comment about Sally bragging about her son, is not atheist. She’s a convert to Islam, mentioned elsewhere. But as James just pointed out, anyone could do this type of “mind-reading.”
I found a Christian on the Miroslav Volf thread who was doing mind-reading at a whole different level. Frozen1 was able to know what Volf’s deceased brother was up to.
“I hasten to explicitly add your 5 year older brother still looks out for you. Together you shall make it if you stay true. He already has his pass, he is just proudly waiting on you, the last in a two brother race?...”
I asked him how he knew that, but he hasn’t gotten back to me yet.
Sally engaged in "magical thinking"or "non-scientific causal reasoning" - which is a well-documented and understood consequence of the nature of our hard-wired ability with (and desire for) patterns.
My main point was your dubiousness about the ability of some atheists to "mind-read."
I admit it is difficult to find Sally's mind sometimes. (sorry, That WAS mean-spirited).
But my major point was:
of course we are ALL mind-readers, and we have been selected by evolution for eons because we were good at reading others' motives: anger, happiness, fear, etc.
i HOPE that when Sally, or anyone else, posts a column on this site, we can "read their minds."
The second job of an educated person is to evaluate the point of view, stance, and biases of a speaker/presenter of a proposition.
It is what rational discourse depends on. Of course it is not infallible. but it is pretty developed.
As someone else here noted, knowing a fair amount about Sally, as we do from the public record and her writings on ON FAITH, helps us to ascribe motives as well.
Just as there are about 80 books out right now showing how people are just as moral when they are atheists as believers.
Good morning, James.
I fear you misread me. I was talking only about what some people on this list seem to believe that they have, viz. the ability to mind-read and know what other folks real motives are. I said nothing, nothing, nothing about their morality.
In fact, I do not assume that atheists are less moral than others. I have strong reason for NOT assuming that. I have myself known extremely moral non-believers whom I hold in the highest esteem. And add to that my parents even named me after an atheist -- my mother's beloved physics teacher, because my mother held her in such high esteem. So I don't come with the sort of prejudice that many believers seems to have of non-believers. I don't claim any particular virtue about this -- I just wasn't raised that way and I've known some fine atheists.
This does not mean, however, that I automatically assume that *all* atheists are *rational*. Some are, some aren't. And some I've known are even quite narrow-minded, etc. -- all the things that the rest of us are. A number of atheists on the blog have said themselves that there is only one thing that they have in common, the fact that they think there is no God. So I do expect variety from you guys too, including some who seem to think they can read other people's minds.
Need to make an important correction to the quote attributed to Richard Feynman by the first commenter. (Had he believed in the afterlife, he'd be rolling in his grave now...) What he really said was:
"It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong."
He elaborates this position in his famous "Cargo cult science" speech given as the 1974 commencement address at Cal Tech. Some of you might find it enlightening:
Sorry, I'm afraid I didn't explain my position very well. I'll try again.
My point was not that if science cannot explain something that it cannot be explained. No, my point was that there are different sorts of explanations, and scientific explanation is only *one kind* of causal explanation. Why? Because there are different sorts of questions. And there are different sorts of questions because there are different sorts of causes.
There are different sorts of causes, and science deals *only* with one of them, what philosophers these days call "agents" or "agency". Agents are causes which make something to come into existence that wasn't there before, and scientists are concerned *only* with this sort of causality.
When you turn up the knob of the stove and the water in the pot boils, then you can reason on the basis of that (plus other evidence, see Boyle's Laws) that turning the knob is at least one of the causes that the water is now evaporating, which it wasn't before you turned up the heat. The turning of the knob was one of the agents that caused the boiling state of the water to come into existence.
But we know that there are other sorts of causes besides agency. We know from our own internal, subjective experience that we do things for a purpose -- and the philosophers call this sort of reason "final causality", or the reason why we do what we do. It's a cause of a cause, a cause of agency. For instance, we can ask the question: "why did you turn up the heat in the first place?" and your answer might be "I wanted to make a cup of tea to cheer me up on a dull and dismal day". That was the final cause of that act, that agency of turning the knob (and all the other things you did to get boiling water).
I think Sally's experience was concerned with final causes -- something strange happened, a conjuction of individual facts, a co-incidence which science could not project. (I agree with you that science cannot project such a fact.) You might argue that science could project it if it had enough information, but it is also a fact that there is nothing in the nature of palm trees, mazes and certain learning disabilities that necessarily, universally, in all cases causes that all palm trees and mazes and mothers to happen *together* in the particular conjunction of those events which Sally experienced.
The laws of nature are all universal laws. They explain *only* what things have in common, how they are alike. They do not explain how *and why* there are *different things* which come together in nonuniversal, unpredictable ways. In other words, science does not explain individual lives, the *why* of individual lives, which this and this and this *happen together*. Only philosophy and religion can even begin to attempt to do that. Such questions are beyond the domain of science.
The problem with people like Dawkins is that they ask only one sort of question: how do all things of the same kind act? But there is much, much more to explain about the world we live. We need to explain way and for what final causes *individual things* are found in conjunctions that are neither universal nor predictable.
So, yes, Sally is quite REASONable when she asks: why was there the conjunction of that palm tree in a grove of oaks near a maze with me in the middle worrying about my beloved son who later proved to be astonishingly good at figuring out mazes which gave me hope when I particularly needed it for his future which has come to pass?
Boyle's law and the rest of physics can't even begin answer that one.
The Beginning - “I am the core of all that exists. I am the seed of all that exists. I am the cause of all that exists. I am the trunk of all that exists. I am the foundation of all that exists. I am the root of existence. I am ‘the core’ because I contain all phenomena. I am ‘the seed’ because I give birth to everything. I am ‘the cause’ because all comes from me. I am ‘the trunk’ because the ramifications of every event sprout from me. I am ‘the foundation’ because all abides in me. I am called ‘the root’ because I am everything.”
Omnipotent - "All that we are is the result of what we have thought. The mind is everything. What we think we become.”
Omniscient - "To understand everything is to forgive everything”
From the oral tradition of Buddha, aka Pali Canon:
Monk's question, "...but I ask you where the four elements cease and leave no trace.” Then the Great Brahma took him by the arm and led him aside and said, “These gods think I know and understand everything. Therefore I gave no answer in their presence. But I do not know the answer to your question and you had better go and ask the Buddha.”
Buddha is referred to as, "Master of the Dharma, the Sage who is completely perfect, who is all-pervasive, who encompasses all world systems, who is All-Knowing, the Lord Vairocana."
On Buddha, "He is universal Goodness, beneficial, destroyer [of suffering], the great Lord of Happiness, sky womb, Great Luminosity … the great All-perceiving Lord … He is without beginning or end … [He is] Vishnu [God] … Protector of the world, the sky, the earth … The elements, the good benefactor of beings, All things … the Blessed Rest, Eternal … The Self of all the Buddhas … Pre-eminent over all, and master of the world.”
What Hinduism thinks of Buddha:
From the Amarakosha, "He who is the All-knowing One, the One who has Well-gone, awakened, the King of Righteousness, the One who has Thus Gone, Universal Goodness, the Blessed One, the Conqueror of the Demon Mara, the Conqueror of the [Three] Worlds, the Victorious One, the Possessor of the Six Supernatural Knowledges, the Possessor of the Ten Strengths, the Speaker of Non-dualism, the Guide, the Lord of Sages, the Auspicious One, the Teacher, the Sage and the Sage of the Śākya Clan -- that one is the Lion of the Śākya clan, He who has accomplished all goals, the Son of Śuddhodana, Gautama, the Kinsman of Scholars and the Son of Mayadevi."
The Christian God said, "Humble yourself before the Lord, and He shall lift you up."
Buddha said, "You yourself, as much as anybody in the entire universe, deserve your love and affection.”
The Christian God said, "Love Thy Neighbor."
Buddha said, "He who loves 50 people has 50 woes; he who loves no one has no woes.”
The Christian God said, "The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom."
Buddha said, "The whole secret of existence is to have no fear. Never fear what will become of you, depend on no one. Only the moment you reject all help are you freed.”
I have met several 'enlightened' Buddhists, and they have the HIGHEST opinion of themselves out of anyone I have ever met, even 'atheists', their robes are lavish and showy. Just as the Pharisee's in Christ's day lost Heaven because they sought after it with legalism and flare, the Buddhist loses enlightenment at the moment he thinks he finds it.
In the end, Buddha and his followers seek to alleviate suffering by avoiding it.
Christ confronted suffering, bore it upon Himself, and alleviated suffering.
Christ said, "Come unto me, all ye that are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.
Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls.
For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light."
True Buddhist's who are after enlightenment should be following Christ, not Buddha.
One question for Pam - comment 3 (I think)- How can you be an atheist and spritual at the same time? Just wondering. The two go together that oil and water.
A friend pointed me to Sally's Quinn's article relating her experience while walking a labyrinth. I had a similar unforgettable 'experience' in June 1995. Since then I have walked and constructed many labyrinths in many places. They are growing in popularity worldwide as increasing numbers of people have found them to be helpful when attempting to navigate various forms of personal crisis in their lives. Why or how they facilitate the 'effects' people report is unknown, although there's no lack of opinion on the matter.
Sally's report is but one among thousands; each affirming some sort of solace, reconciliation, magical healing, or mystical insight. The core variable in each anecdote seems to be a circumstance or condition of deep personal crisis.
All Comments (101)
car insurance tesco uk An offer he can't refuse
November 20, 2007 11:18 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on November 20, 2007 11:18
car insurance tesco Meat and two veg.
November 20, 2007 5:07 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on November 20, 2007 05:07
st paul traveler insurance Battle royal
November 19, 2007 8:23 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on November 19, 2007 20:23
Dear Ms Quinn
I can only speak as a believer, and from my own experience. God's ways are mysterious, way above the imagination of human beings. God seeks to communicate with human beings in as many ways as He can - through dreams, through the words of other human beings, through symbols... You were asking God for a sign and you remained open without any preconceived notions about the answer, and He communicated through a symbol that you understood. It is not magic. It is real. I consider it a religious experience, in spite of the fact a rational mind may try to explain it away rationally.
Soja John Thaikattil
Sydney, Australia
January 13, 2007 4:20 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on January 13, 2007 04:20
Posted on January 8, 2007 19:33
Cayln:
"It was the most important thing that ever happened to me…In the end maybe it will make me a better writer because I’ve become more empathetic and more sympathetic than I ever was before.”
Dear Ms. Quinn,
I read the above in your bio, and thought just like the maze story, all of us can tell good myths about ourselves and spin them into anything we want to believe.
As for your empathy and sympathy, I have some experience of that. As a mother I shared a waiting room with you at Children's Hospital. My child had relapsed with cancer and we were waiting to have an emergency MRI. We were told that we had to wait for a boy with a migraine to have his. All of this was fine; we were used to waiting.
For an hour my five-year-old daughter and I found hidden words in puzzles, read books, played tic-tac-toe. You sat directly across from us. There were only three of us. I tried to catch your eye, Mom-to-Mom, but you didn't acknowledge our presence or smile at a very sick, very sweet, very loud little girl. You had a pile of magazines -- freebees sent to you from Vanity Fair, etc. When the nurse came to get you, you didn't offer me any of your bounty; waiting room Moms usually share; waiting room Moms are usually incredibly empathetic.
What I've learned since my daughter died is that it's easy to claim you've had a life-changing experience, but if you don't walk the walk, you can't talk the talk.
Now, let's see if this get published on your blog or if the WP is still censoring.
January 11, 2007 12:28 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on January 11, 2007 12:28
BGONE,
My favourite hoaxbuster! Love your postings in the On Faith threads, both serious and irreverent.
You seem to be in all the threads. You never let up, never let go, never say die to make us see the fallacies of our faith and beliefs.
From a unrepentent believer to an indefatigable secular humanist in excelsis, hats off to you my friend:)
January 10, 2007 5:16 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on January 10, 2007 17:16
David, there's a psychological effect to saying anything does what you're saying labyrinths do. In the early 1970's people were wearing pyramid hats sying they helped them do all sorts of things from avoid micro asteroids to better health. The human mine is very vulnerable to that sort of thing.
Are people helped by labyrinths, pyramid hats, lucky charms, that sort of thing? Maybe but it has never been quantified and in not likely to ever be. I'd guess the vast majority of the population believe in some sort of thing like that with most keeping it to themselves. Superstition runs rampant and has ever since there's been any recording it.
Without a doubt witch doctoring is the oldes profession predating the accepted oldest, prostitution by thousands of years. It's a part of our pshche and we're not likely to give it up in spiet of how vulnerable it makes us to conficence scams.
January 10, 2007 12:02 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on January 10, 2007 00:02
Margeret,
Thanks for the reference to Plato and your insight. You hit the nail on the head and expressed my thoughts from an earlier post perfectly.
In addition, perhaps we should all be looking to ourselves to find our own personal truths as opposed to passively waiting for a God to fix the world.
January 9, 2007 12:13 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on January 9, 2007 12:13
Thanks, again, Merri -- I would just add that for me, spiritual growth is not associated with belief in God and I don't think it ever has been. I feel more joyful and unconstrained now than when religious beliefs were more influential in my life.
January 9, 2007 11:40 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on January 9, 2007 11:40
From Merri To E Favorite and William:
Sorry the last post headed anonymous should have my name on it!
January 9, 2007 11:01 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on January 9, 2007 11:01
To William:
I don't see where Zeus comes in, but since I believe faith is personal, I acknowledge your right to interpret how you wish.
To E Favorite and William:
To clarify my beliefs, I am Christian and believe in God, however I continue to seek the truth as to the nature of God. I don't believe in a strict interpretation of the Bible and am probably a polar opposite of Canyon Shearer in this respect. Keeping an open mind about mysteries of the universe that we can't possibly know for certain is how I always try to approach faith. I continue to sort and refine my views by reading, studying, praying, meditating, communal worship, and discussion. I believe that God is bigger and more creative and compassionate and changing than we can ever imagine. Anyone who claims categorically to have an unquestioning grasp on these mysteries, I think is missing opportunities for spiritual growth and the joys that can come from it. Likewise, a narrow focus on so-called "endtimes" precludes a life of seeking and growth in the here and now.
Peace
January 9, 2007 10:54 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on January 9, 2007 10:54
Sally, what if your experience is neither magical or spiritual. What if like Plato thought this earth is a "form" or an imperfect representation of a perfect place. What if our souls are the same, we bear the imprint of a creator. And because of that our souls long for truth. The Labyrinth simply is a tool to see that truth. Thank you for your column.
January 9, 2007 10:38 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on January 9, 2007 10:38
E Favorite, have you seen the essay on how to find God at http://www.hoax-buster.org page 10? He's claiming that God is owned, a piece of property and that scientists can invent God and take God over. He's talking about "Creator God" I'm sure and not the lesser gods.
Does man have the power to create matter from nothing? Will man ever have that power? What will man do with that power should it come to pass? What will the first man to do that claim he is?
January 9, 2007 10:23 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on January 9, 2007 10:23
"Squander No More U.S. Lives in Iraq"
How could anyone object? But why keep that favor for just those in Iraq? Squander no more lives anywhere for any reason. That should fix the problem. But if we are to live, then we are to die. Even sitting in my chair, I might die. One can only ask Christ to return and take this burden from us. It is too much. We can not hope for better.
Then I thought that to evaluate something, it is useful to know its purpose. If I see a man plunge a blade into another, it helps to know if he is a killer or a doctor. The thought came that of the three important vultures - faith and hope and charity, that love is the most important. I know. It was not one of the three. But I prize it above all others.
To live a life with love, I need to have faith and hope and charity. To support our President I have to have faith that what he is doing is for a purpose and that to win in Iraq will lead to peace. We have three choices here. We can leave without ending the fighting in Iraq, which will be fine for our troops but leave the pain to others. We can continue doing what has not worked well. Or we could find a way to win quickly and bring peace. To chose the last path, we have to have hope that we can win and know how to win. We need charity to spend our wealth for others. And we need faith.
To say our choices are to leave, surge or have the status quo is to ignore the outcomes. It is to say all possible futures are evil and doomed. I reject that analysis. To live without thought of the future or to think that it is hopeless is not the way I want to live. I want faith and hope and charity and most of all to remember that of these - the most important is still love.
January 9, 2007 8:45 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on January 9, 2007 08:45
Thanks, Merri –
To me, your second message is notably different in tone from your first one. The first one seems much more like an assertion – people who don’t look to God will ultimately go nowhere (paraphrasing). However, the second post includes the important qualifier “in my experience” suggesting that this is what you’ve found works for you, not that you are sure that others “must” see it this way in order to find answers to life’s questions.
In the second post, you’ve also defined God in a much more general way than I took it in your first post. My problem, I know, but I think in our society, “God” is usually meant as the biblical God. People often use a non-religious term like “higher power” (or “benign force,” as you did the second time) when not limiting meaning to the biblical God.
Also, I’m used to hearing religious people make pronouncements, based on biblical teachings (or their interpretation of them) – with no other evidence or no personal understanding of the people they are addressing. To me, that’s what your first post sounded like.
January 9, 2007 8:39 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on January 9, 2007 08:39
JAMES- ANNE O was gently chastising me for being arrogant and judgemental in that i was stating sally's intentions in a negative way- and if it was or was not an apt analysis on my part- it was still unneccessary for me to express it that way-
shes just too classy to say that and so instead has taken heat on herself for it-
r maybe im being arrogant and thinking the world revolves around me and she WASNT talking to me-
in either case i felt guilt at my ungracious remarks-
i dont have to express every piece of osmething my brain spits out even tho i do but i shouldnt be insulting
peace
January 9, 2007 8:01 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on January 9, 2007 08:01
"if you had a knife pressed up against your throat, would it matter one bit if you didn't believe in knives?"
One day a man was out walking and came across a circus being set up. Standing out amid all the bustle was a huge and magnificent elephant tethered to a stout post. Yet the elephant was tied not with thick ropes or heavy chains, but a frayed and dirty piece of string. The man was so amazed at this that he went up and asked how such a thing could be. The person told him that the circus had had the elephant since it was a baby, so small that the string they tied it with was too much for it to break, no matter how hard it tried. The elephant grew and grew, but in its mind the string remained so strong, too strong to break - and so it was.
January 9, 2007 7:55 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on January 9, 2007 07:55
Bring them home now and end this travesty .
January 9, 2007 4:55 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on January 9, 2007 04:55
Anonymous, all morality comes from God, through the Bible and your conscience. If you don't get your morality from the Bible, you're getting it from your conscience, if you're ignoring your conscience, you're not moral.
BGone, if you had a knife pressed up against your throat, would it matter one bit if you didn't believe in knives?
January 9, 2007 1:21 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on January 9, 2007 01:21
Why would any reasonable person offer only "religious experience" or "magic" as explanations?
Hey, I have a story too. A friend of mine prayed for days that her drug-dealing husband would beat the rap when he got caught red-handed. He did, on a technicality. Now, was that religion, or magic? She cited it to me as a proof that you really can petition the Lord with prayer. She does so without any sense of irony, and does not use it for monetary gain. She also divorced the guy some months later when he started knocking the crap out of her every time he was high. Musta been bad karma, y'know?
"No one ever claimed that Christians are more moral than unbelievers, especially 'atheists'." Carol Shearer apparently doesn't listen to radio/TV preachers or pay attention to the wingnut insistance that all morality comes from the Bible.
January 9, 2007 12:45 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on January 9, 2007 00:45
Hey Canyon. Good shot. Christians are all sinners by their own admission to say nothing of Dubya saying, "we are all sinners" on the official presidential record.
Can you do this simple logic. Atheists don't believe there is a God. Therefore there are no laws of God to be broken. Sins are the breaking of God's laws. By definition, atheists cannot sin. By definition, Christians are all sinners. Confessing not recommended though.
Satan, God's accurser who does the test of soul on Christians, Jews and Muslims uses a lie detector. Now it's a really good one that can only be fooled by accompolished liars. Telling the truth is not recommended and especially admitting sinning. Satan feeds sinners to a monster that eats them completely out of existence. I can't help but notice that the three great faiths practice lying so you may well get past Satan. Ahteists don't have that problem and therefore atheists have no need to practice lying. Practice hard Canyon for one never knows how good that lie detector might be.
January 9, 2007 12:39 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on January 9, 2007 00:39
No one ever claimed that Christians are more moral than unbelievers, especially 'atheists'. ON THE CONTRARY. Christians should never judge 'atheists' or think that somehow 'atheists' are worse than them, we can't know their thoughts; only that God said, "All have sinned and fallen short of the Glory of God." It does not say, "All have sinned, especially those lousy, despicable, horrible atheists who nobody likes."
Rather, Christians should err towards Paul when he said, "I am chief among sinners."
To diverge from the path really quickly, many tests show that 'atheists' are on par with the morals of Christians, this shouldn't happen; Christians SHOULD be the most moral people in the world, the fact that evidences could be found otherwise leads me to plead with Christians to listen to this sermon:
sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?currSection=sermonsspeaker&sermonID=2230517301
But more importantly, the morals are not what we base a religion on, at least not a good religion. Religion is not the way to live your life, but rather what happens when you die.
All have sinned and fallen short of the Glory of God. This means that God expects perfection, holiness, absolute absence of sin in order for you to enter Heaven.
He has a good reason for this, God let man onto the earth; which was similar to Heaven, and the sin of man has destroyed the sanctity and beauty that this world once was.
Transgression of God's Law breeds death; the sins of lying, the sins of stealing, of covetousness, of lust and hatred, of failing to give God due reverence, and especially of failing to do good in the face of evil, will all keep a person from seeing Heaven and put God in the position of the judge, and He will judge all according to their sins.
Each sin you have ever committed is written on your conscience, and when God opens the book of your conscience, every lie from every day, in EVERY context, not just the white lies told to save someone’s life, but the blatant, shamefaced lies which were woven in deceit in order to deceive. Peter tells us that one sin is damnable, for by one sin was death entered into the world, and therefore, no sin will be allowed into Heaven.
Fortunately for the Christian, and the soon to be Christian, when their book of the conscience is opened, the pages will be blank, because the Blood of Christ cleanses these things; God will be able to allow the Christian into Heaven because their sins have been forgiven, their heart has been born anew, and the merits of Christ have been attributed to their sake.
It is not an issue of morality, but rather an issue of redemption. The lives we live on earth are but wisps of vapor that exist for a moment, and then they are gone, after death it is appointed the judgment.
If the saving graces of Christ have not found you, I plead with you to reach out to Christ, to receive His Blessing; Repent of your sins, and trust that Christ will deliver you to Heaven; not for a better life now, but so that you may know God and God you, and that the doors will be open to you when you knock on Heavens gate.
January 8, 2007 11:32 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on January 8, 2007 23:32
Drew,
Thanks for paying attention. A word I haven't used yet to describe the faiths of Buddhism and Hinduism is 'coloring book' religions. You make these two religions out to FIT yourself, not to seek enlightenment or to improve yourself in any way.
It's like if I have a huge affliction for chocolate cake, I would say, "Buddha endorses the chocolate cake." Even if I had no reference for that what-so-ever.
Hinduism fits the description because there are more Hindu gods than there are people in the United States.
Because of the millions of individual belief systems that all constitute Buddhism, Hinduism, and even Taoism, we could argue various ideologies all day, and in the end, we would both be right, because these religions have strayed from their origins.
That said, Taoism was formalized by Lao te Tzu, but his pure faith in what was unknown is the beginnings of Hinduism. Taoism knows that we are born, that we die, and that in the middle we live in creation. It makes no presuppositions to a cycle of rebirths. Despite the fact that the most prolific writers on Taoism lived long after the formalization of Hinduism, the merits of Taoism are readily evident, and at the beginning of the mush of Hinduism.
The three quotes I selected on Buddha are only the most damning to his character; I assure you there are many more that show the man had no concept of enlightenment nor of the religion that has sprouted up from his life. For example, I could get up and preach about not being arrogant and being tolerant of all of the worlds religions to the point of silence...but the true test of my message is the extent which I act out my message, in which case, I say, "Avoid haughtiness, and be tolerant of other religions only in as much as we are all being human in need of redemption."
Your post was well written and represented, thank you for asking me to clarify. To segway, your sentence that all are vulnerable to temptation and sin is what I'd like to respond to everyone else with.
January 8, 2007 11:32 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on January 8, 2007 23:32
Thanks, Sally, for a nice story. It's easy for me (and others) to call it a coincidence, but I'm sure if it happened to me I wouldn't. I suppose you have to be there.
I'd like to respond to Canyon here, on the Buddhist-related conversation that's going on. First off, in reading your chronology, I'm not so sure about your drawing a line between Taoism and Hinduism. It seems to be that Taoism originated in 3-4th century China, and Hinduism came out much, much earlier out of polytheistic traditions in India. The Buddha himself was born (a Hindu) about 200 years before the rise of official taoism, and in a far distant place. Later, much later, Taoism and Buddhism merge together, but their origins are pretty separate.
Also, I don't particularly care for the way in which you've misrepresented the Buddha's quotes there - one can take a single quote and really interpret the heck out of it. The Buddha certianly didn't claim to be a god, even if he did claim to know a lot, and if you ask any monk if Siddhartha Gotama is alive today, the answer is unquestionably no. The inspiring thing about Buddhism is that the Buddha was an ordinary person, like you or me - he was not selected by forces above like Muhammed, nor was he born special, like Jesus - instead, his is a state to which we all can aspire.
All this being said, I'm quite solidly an agnostic, although I'm living in a majority-Buddhist country and working with many monks. In practice, they're similar to priests and preachers - vulnerable to the same sorts of temptations and sins, sometimes capable of profundity.
So, Canyon, I'd invite you to clarify your information a bit.
January 8, 2007 10:20 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on January 8, 2007 22:20
"Was what I had a magical or a religious experience?"
Of course it was - but so are most of our experiences. We just need to pay attention to see it.
January 8, 2007 8:10 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on January 8, 2007 20:10
"It was the most important thing that ever happened to me…In the end maybe it will make me a better writer because I’ve become more empathetic and more sympathetic than I ever was before.”
Dear Ms. Quinn,
I read the above in your bio, and thought just like the maze story, all of us can tell good myths about ourselves and spin them into anything we want to believe.
As for your empathy and sympathy, I have some experience of that. As a mother I shared a waiting room with you at Children's Hospital. My child had relapsed with cancer and we were waiting to have an emergency MRI. We were told that we had to wait for a boy with a migraine to have his. All of this was fine; we were used to waiting.
For an hour my five-year-old daughter and I found hidden words in puzzles, read books, played tic-tac-toe. You sat directly across from us. There were only three of us. I tried to catch your eye, Mom-to-Mom, but you didn't acknowledge our presence or smile at a very sick, very sweet, very loud little girl. You had a pile of magazines -- freebees sent to you from Vanity Fair, etc. When the nurse came to get you, you didn't offer me any of your bounty; waiting room Moms usually share; waiting room Moms are usually incredibly empathetic.
What I've learned since my daughter died is that it's easy to claim you've had a life-changing experience, but if you don't walk the walk, you can't talk the talk.
Now, let's see if this get published on your blog or if the WP is still censoring.
January 8, 2007 7:51 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on January 8, 2007 19:51
I quoted 3 Quarks: ANN replies:
Oops! You're right. It seems it was Einstein is the one who said that, or words to that effect. Here's from the 3 Quarks a Day blog:
"When Albert Einstein was asked what he would do if the measurements of bending starlight at the 1919 eclipse contradicted his general theory of relativity, he famously repliedVonnegut, "Then I would feel sorry for the good Lord. The theory is correct." What he meant was that the theory is far too beautiful to be wrong"
But that name "Vonnegut" doesn't appear in the statement on the blog. I have no idea where it came from. So please don't assume that Einstein was saying that to Vonnegut.
Ann O.
January 8, 2007 7:33 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on January 8, 2007 19:33
JAMES tells us:
have you read any books lately.
Just as there are about 80 books out right now showing how people are just as moral when they are atheists as believers
there are about 50 books about the human, evolutionarily developed, ability to read other people's facial expressions, and once we started to talk, verbal expressions.
TOTALLY NATURAL> nothing SUPERnatural about it.
loads of scientific evidence
if you were curious, you could research it yourself.
ANN replies:
I've already pointed out to you that I was *not* assuming that atheists are immoral people. You seem to have misread my mind and thought that I was thinking that.
As for reading books about our supposed "mind-reading" ability, I suggest you read a lot more about the complexities of communication, about the many different ways in which we can and do often misinterpret what other people's words mean.
One of the first things you might learn is that there are two very different sorts of "meanings" -- cognitive ones, which are meanings about what we are thinking to be so or not so, and affective ones which are meanings about our feelings about what we are thinking and meanings about intentions and motives.
What you have done with Ms Quinn's words is assign motives for her speech acts which she doesn't speak about explicitly, nor as far as I can see, has even suggested by her words. You certainly projected a thought into my head which I wasn't thinking -- the bit about atheists being immoral. You imply that you *knew* that I was thinking that atheists are immoral. See -- you were wrong, James. And you seem to have done the same thing when you tried to interpret Ms Quinn's motives on the basis of the cognitive statements she made. (I might add that you seem to be assuming that Ms Quinn would have only one motive or one set of related motives. It could be that she had many, many motives of various sorts. More oversimplification on your part, James.)
You seem to have a lot to learn about how language works, James. You might find the linguistic analysts interesting. I suggest you start with John Austin's little treasure _How to Do Things with Words_. If you really want to get into the myriads of things that can happen when we use words, you can try Wittgenstein's _Philosophical Investigations_. Between them they'd be a good start for you. Language can bewitch us, sa
'
Or, as you say, if you were curious, you could research it yourself.
Ann O.
January 8, 2007 7:23 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on January 8, 2007 19:23
CHRIS tells us:
Need to make an important correction to the quote attributed to Richard Feynman by the first commenter. (Had he believed in the afterlife, he'd be rolling in his grave now...) What he really said was:
"It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong."
Posted January 8, 2007 12:37 PM
ANN replies:
Oops! You're right. It seems it was Einstein is the one who said that, or words to that effect. Here's from the 3 Quarks a Day blog:
"When Albert Einstein was asked what he would do if the measurements of bending starlight at the 1919 eclipse contradicted his general theory of relativity, he famously repliedVonnegut, "Then I would feel sorry for the good Lord. The theory is correct." What he meant was that the theory is far too beautiful to be wrong"
At: http://3quarksdaily.blogs.com/3quarksdaily/2005/07/monday_musing_f.html
I haven't been able to track down the source of that quotation, but I assume the writer didn't make it up. (Perhaps I'm too trusting.) But sidebar on the page I'm quoting f rom claims that Dawkins said of that blog: ""I have placed 3 Quarks Daily at the head of my list of web bookmarks."—Richard Dawkins, Charles Simonyi Professor of the Public Understanding of Science at Oxford University."
Ann O.
January 8, 2007 6:58 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on January 8, 2007 18:58
Some people liked the article, some didn't. Some are critical, some are not. All get to express their opinions. That's what a forum like this is all about.
January 8, 2007 6:40 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on January 8, 2007 18:40
"was is a magical or religious experience?"
My guess is that for most of us, magic and/or religion are whatever we want them to be.
But in that certain parts of the story have been given an almost mystical aura, and that the story contains certain mythical/heroic/religious archetypes (searchng for something, an unusual journey, finding a special or sacred place, a revelation or enlightenement), then I'd say it qualifies as much as anything else I've read.
January 8, 2007 6:36 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on January 8, 2007 18:36
Whenever I read anything by Sally Quinn, who is a very good writer, or watch her on Hardball, I get the sense that she is always reminding her readers;/viewers that she is somehow better than most people.
January 8, 2007 6:02 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on January 8, 2007 18:02
I think the experience in the labyrinth was what Carl Jung called a "synchronicity" - a meaningful coincidence in time.
January 8, 2007 5:59 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on January 8, 2007 17:59
Different columns, same responses.
Hey atheists, we get it. You have found the one truth of the universe and the rest of us deserve your contempt.
And why are you guys different than any other rigid, intolerant and dogmatic faith?
January 8, 2007 5:03 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on January 8, 2007 17:03
Sally Quinn has had a mystical experience, and not while drunk and/or on drugs I presume.
To the unbelievers, if you see a UFO, a mermaid, or an apparition,would you share your "out of the world" experience with us? Even while smoking but not inhaling, even while drinking but not drunk?
January 8, 2007 4:59 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on January 8, 2007 16:59
Sally,
At the end of your beautiful story you asked us to tell you if your experience was magical or religious. My answer to you is that it does not matter. You had an experience that had a positive impact on you. That's what counts.
Let the cynics and smart alecks who disparaged your sentimental essay with their unkind comments struggle mightily to answer your question. (In silence, hopefully)
I've been blessed with a similar experience and have never bothered to analyze it. It happened and it made my life better. And that's enough.
Thank you.
January 8, 2007 4:44 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on January 8, 2007 16:44
William:
You write, "It appears you've had some ups and downs so have we all. Seeking comfort from Zeus is not the way to handle them though."
Is that a statement of scientific fact or an article of faith. Could we not establish an empirical study that would demonstrate faith in Zeus did in fact smooth out the ups and downs of life? Out of then thousand subjects wouldn't you expect a certain number to have this happen? Yes, I know that doesn't demonstrate a causality all by itself, but you'd still have to account for it wouldn't you?
I don't mean to be funny. People are not that predictable that we can say "no one can find comfort from Zeus." There was probably a time when there were more Zeus believers, many of which found great comfort in that belief. Perhaps even healing.
January 8, 2007 4:37 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on January 8, 2007 16:37
I didn't read all the comments posted here, so perhaps someone has already come to the same conclusion as I, which is: the boy would have aced the maze test regardless of whether his mother was in the labyrinth or Walmart. Now, if the boy had gotten lost inside his maze test at the same time his mother found a piece of cheese in the middle of the labyrinth, I'd say the two were somehow connected.
January 8, 2007 4:12 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on January 8, 2007 16:12
The experience is a given, what she said. The validity, whether or not she had the experience is not the question but rather a mini survey. Time to vote:
a) magic
b) religious
None of the above is not a possible answer. Your experience is not the question. Her experience is not the question. Experiences are not in order. You're lucky for I too have had that kind of experience and you won't have to hear it.
January 8, 2007 4:02 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on January 8, 2007 16:02
And what kind of presumption does it take, Victoria, for you to be analyzing (derogatorily) Sally because of the story she told about Quinn. It's a bit cynical to believe that everything is self focused and an effort at one upmanship.
Perhaps you know her very well which then may give you more insights into her than the rest of us.
As for me I would try to resist the natural desire to explain. I would try to experience instead. Not all things in this world are explainable--some remain a mystery. And if we are willing to accept that then life is richer and fuller and a hell of a lot more fun.
And in that effort to not explain it, I would also try not to put a religious label on it, although I am a Christian. I get a bit tired of people attributing to God the coincidences of normal life and living.
But I would be thankful for my son Quinn and his success and (I expect) his share of happiness in life, which I am sure you are.
January 8, 2007 3:50 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on January 8, 2007 15:50
Wait, wait, wait....
After reading some of the comments I have to come to the article's defense because while reading it I was coming to entirely different conclusions.
I saw it as much as a metaphor of how humans come to faith (whether its thru the Bible, Koran, Buddhist teachings, or a maze {which is a method I believe has been around since the middle ages}).
While I'm entirely agnostic, and don't believe that anything supernatural happened with Sally's son, the faith-experience she had served to make her feel better and is a good unto itself because it "healed" her battered psych.
Isn't this faith? How is her story any different than some of the stuff I've read on these posts by Canyon Shearer?
January 8, 2007 3:26 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on January 8, 2007 15:26
Merri: "I am not necessarily talking about an anthropomorphic, supernatural being, but a benign force in the universe that you may call anything you like. I call it God." I don't mean to be offensive but let's not live in fantasies, even if it feels better to do so. What's a "benign force"? Is it something like lightning? wind? Is there also an "evil force"? It appears that you have had some ups and downs, so have we all. Seeking comfort from Zeus is not the way to handle them, though. Good luck!
January 8, 2007 3:04 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on January 8, 2007 15:04
When I was in the military stationed in the desert my wife gave birth to our first son. After his first year he began to not look at us, respond tous, etc...He was diagnost with Autism. He stopped walking and was only in his world.
On a bad day I went out in the middle of no where and prayed for him. Hard. Let me say that I believe-and always have-in God and Jesus. I do not believe in a lot of the hoopla surrounding organized religions.
When I went home that he was responding-he was aware of what was around him. He was activily apart of the world.
My son is 20 years old now. He is still and always will be Autistic but he is an incredibly happy young man. He brings joy to other people. We are told this by people he comes in contact with.
He will be with us the rest of his days but it is easy to see the small miracle given to my family.
January 8, 2007 2:42 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on January 8, 2007 14:42
Hello, Ann O –
More on mind reading. Victoria, who made the comment about Sally bragging about her son, is not atheist. She’s a convert to Islam, mentioned elsewhere. But as James just pointed out, anyone could do this type of “mind-reading.”
I found a Christian on the Miroslav Volf thread who was doing mind-reading at a whole different level. Frozen1 was able to know what Volf’s deceased brother was up to.
“I hasten to explicitly add your 5 year older brother still looks out for you. Together you shall make it if you stay true. He already has his pass, he is just proudly waiting on you, the last in a two brother race?...”
I asked him how he knew that, but he hasn’t gotten back to me yet.
January 8, 2007 2:11 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on January 8, 2007 14:11
I read your story and am still confused about one thing.
Is your son's name Quinn Quinn?
January 8, 2007 1:42 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on January 8, 2007 13:42
Sally engaged in "magical thinking"or "non-scientific causal reasoning" - which is a well-documented and understood consequence of the nature of our hard-wired ability with (and desire for) patterns.
http://www.mprize.org/index.php?ctype=news&pagename=blogdetaildisplay&BID=2006122-24033611&detaildisplay=Y
January 8, 2007 1:37 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on January 8, 2007 13:37
Ann
Sorry to confuse you with the Morality issue.
My main point was your dubiousness about the ability of some atheists to "mind-read."
I admit it is difficult to find Sally's mind sometimes. (sorry, That WAS mean-spirited).
But my major point was:
of course we are ALL mind-readers, and we have been selected by evolution for eons because we were good at reading others' motives: anger, happiness, fear, etc.
i HOPE that when Sally, or anyone else, posts a column on this site, we can "read their minds."
The second job of an educated person is to evaluate the point of view, stance, and biases of a speaker/presenter of a proposition.
It is what rational discourse depends on. Of course it is not infallible. but it is pretty developed.
As someone else here noted, knowing a fair amount about Sally, as we do from the public record and her writings on ON FAITH, helps us to ascribe motives as well.
January 8, 2007 1:22 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on January 8, 2007 13:22
JAMES asks:
Ann O
have you read any books lately.
Just as there are about 80 books out right now showing how people are just as moral when they are atheists as believers.
Good morning, James.
I fear you misread me. I was talking only about what some people on this list seem to believe that they have, viz. the ability to mind-read and know what other folks real motives are. I said nothing, nothing, nothing about their morality.
In fact, I do not assume that atheists are less moral than others. I have strong reason for NOT assuming that. I have myself known extremely moral non-believers whom I hold in the highest esteem. And add to that my parents even named me after an atheist -- my mother's beloved physics teacher, because my mother held her in such high esteem. So I don't come with the sort of prejudice that many believers seems to have of non-believers. I don't claim any particular virtue about this -- I just wasn't raised that way and I've known some fine atheists.
This does not mean, however, that I automatically assume that *all* atheists are *rational*. Some are, some aren't. And some I've known are even quite narrow-minded, etc. -- all the things that the rest of us are. A number of atheists on the blog have said themselves that there is only one thing that they have in common, the fact that they think there is no God. So I do expect variety from you guys too, including some who seem to think they can read other people's minds.
Ann O.
January 8, 2007 1:08 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on January 8, 2007 13:08
Need to make an important correction to the quote attributed to Richard Feynman by the first commenter. (Had he believed in the afterlife, he'd be rolling in his grave now...) What he really said was:
"It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong."
He elaborates this position in his famous "Cargo cult science" speech given as the 1974 commencement address at Cal Tech. Some of you might find it enlightening:
http://www.lhup.edu/~DSIMANEK/cargocul.htm
Chris C.
January 8, 2007 12:37 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on January 8, 2007 12:37
To JLR:
Hi, JL,
Sorry, I'm afraid I didn't explain my position very well. I'll try again.
My point was not that if science cannot explain something that it cannot be explained. No, my point was that there are different sorts of explanations, and scientific explanation is only *one kind* of causal explanation. Why? Because there are different sorts of questions. And there are different sorts of questions because there are different sorts of causes.
There are different sorts of causes, and science deals *only* with one of them, what philosophers these days call "agents" or "agency". Agents are causes which make something to come into existence that wasn't there before, and scientists are concerned *only* with this sort of causality.
When you turn up the knob of the stove and the water in the pot boils, then you can reason on the basis of that (plus other evidence, see Boyle's Laws) that turning the knob is at least one of the causes that the water is now evaporating, which it wasn't before you turned up the heat. The turning of the knob was one of the agents that caused the boiling state of the water to come into existence.
But we know that there are other sorts of causes besides agency. We know from our own internal, subjective experience that we do things for a purpose -- and the philosophers call this sort of reason "final causality", or the reason why we do what we do. It's a cause of a cause, a cause of agency. For instance, we can ask the question: "why did you turn up the heat in the first place?" and your answer might be "I wanted to make a cup of tea to cheer me up on a dull and dismal day". That was the final cause of that act, that agency of turning the knob (and all the other things you did to get boiling water).
I think Sally's experience was concerned with final causes -- something strange happened, a conjuction of individual facts, a co-incidence which science could not project. (I agree with you that science cannot project such a fact.) You might argue that science could project it if it had enough information, but it is also a fact that there is nothing in the nature of palm trees, mazes and certain learning disabilities that necessarily, universally, in all cases causes that all palm trees and mazes and mothers to happen *together* in the particular conjunction of those events which Sally experienced.
The laws of nature are all universal laws. They explain *only* what things have in common, how they are alike. They do not explain how *and why* there are *different things* which come together in nonuniversal, unpredictable ways. In other words, science does not explain individual lives, the *why* of individual lives, which this and this and this *happen together*. Only philosophy and religion can even begin to attempt to do that. Such questions are beyond the domain of science.
The problem with people like Dawkins is that they ask only one sort of question: how do all things of the same kind act? But there is much, much more to explain about the world we live. We need to explain way and for what final causes *individual things* are found in conjunctions that are neither universal nor predictable.
So, yes, Sally is quite REASONable when she asks: why was there the conjunction of that palm tree in a grove of oaks near a maze with me in the middle worrying about my beloved son who later proved to be astonishingly good at figuring out mazes which gave me hope when I particularly needed it for his future which has come to pass?
Boyle's law and the rest of physics can't even begin answer that one.
Ann O.
January 8, 2007 12:28 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on January 8, 2007 12:28
Well, that's one way to rationalize taking a vacation when your kid's sick.
January 8, 2007 12:22 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on January 8, 2007 12:22
From Buddha:
The Beginning - “I am the core of all that exists. I am the seed of all that exists. I am the cause of all that exists. I am the trunk of all that exists. I am the foundation of all that exists. I am the root of existence. I am ‘the core’ because I contain all phenomena. I am ‘the seed’ because I give birth to everything. I am ‘the cause’ because all comes from me. I am ‘the trunk’ because the ramifications of every event sprout from me. I am ‘the foundation’ because all abides in me. I am called ‘the root’ because I am everything.”
Omnipotent - "All that we are is the result of what we have thought. The mind is everything. What we think we become.”
Omniscient - "To understand everything is to forgive everything”
From the oral tradition of Buddha, aka Pali Canon:
Monk's question, "...but I ask you where the four elements cease and leave no trace.” Then the Great Brahma took him by the arm and led him aside and said, “These gods think I know and understand everything. Therefore I gave no answer in their presence. But I do not know the answer to your question and you had better go and ask the Buddha.”
Buddha is referred to as, "Master of the Dharma, the Sage who is completely perfect, who is all-pervasive, who encompasses all world systems, who is All-Knowing, the Lord Vairocana."
On Buddha, "He is universal Goodness, beneficial, destroyer [of suffering], the great Lord of Happiness, sky womb, Great Luminosity … the great All-perceiving Lord … He is without beginning or end … [He is] Vishnu [God] … Protector of the world, the sky, the earth … The elements, the good benefactor of beings, All things … the Blessed Rest, Eternal … The Self of all the Buddhas … Pre-eminent over all, and master of the world.”
What Hinduism thinks of Buddha:
From the Amarakosha, "He who is the All-knowing One, the One who has Well-gone, awakened, the King of Righteousness, the One who has Thus Gone, Universal Goodness, the Blessed One, the Conqueror of the Demon Mara, the Conqueror of the [Three] Worlds, the Victorious One, the Possessor of the Six Supernatural Knowledges, the Possessor of the Ten Strengths, the Speaker of Non-dualism, the Guide, the Lord of Sages, the Auspicious One, the Teacher, the Sage and the Sage of the Śākya Clan -- that one is the Lion of the Śākya clan, He who has accomplished all goals, the Son of Śuddhodana, Gautama, the Kinsman of Scholars and the Son of Mayadevi."
The Christian God said, "Humble yourself before the Lord, and He shall lift you up."
Buddha said, "You yourself, as much as anybody in the entire universe, deserve your love and affection.”
The Christian God said, "Love Thy Neighbor."
Buddha said, "He who loves 50 people has 50 woes; he who loves no one has no woes.”
The Christian God said, "The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom."
Buddha said, "The whole secret of existence is to have no fear. Never fear what will become of you, depend on no one. Only the moment you reject all help are you freed.”
I have met several 'enlightened' Buddhists, and they have the HIGHEST opinion of themselves out of anyone I have ever met, even 'atheists', their robes are lavish and showy. Just as the Pharisee's in Christ's day lost Heaven because they sought after it with legalism and flare, the Buddhist loses enlightenment at the moment he thinks he finds it.
In the end, Buddha and his followers seek to alleviate suffering by avoiding it.
Christ confronted suffering, bore it upon Himself, and alleviated suffering.
Christ said, "Come unto me, all ye that are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.
Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls.
For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light."
True Buddhist's who are after enlightenment should be following Christ, not Buddha.
January 8, 2007 12:17 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on January 8, 2007 12:17
One question for Pam - comment 3 (I think)- How can you be an atheist and spritual at the same time? Just wondering. The two go together that oil and water.
January 8, 2007 12:11 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on January 8, 2007 12:11
A friend pointed me to Sally's Quinn's article relating her experience while walking a labyrinth. I had a similar unforgettable 'experience' in June 1995. Since then I have walked and constructed many labyrinths in many places. They are growing in popularity worldwide as increasing numbers of people have found them to be helpful when attempting to navigate various forms of personal crisis in their lives. Why or how they facilitate the 'effects' people report is unknown, although there's no lack of opinion on the matter.
Sally's report is but one among thousands; each affirming some sort of solace, reconciliation, magical healing, or mystical insight. The core variable in each anecdote seems to be a circumstance or condition of deep personal crisis.
It's uniq