Spirituality
Offline I know how the majority here feels about religion, and I couldn't agree more. The idea of a giant invisible man in the sky telling me not to have sex seems pretty bizarre to me too. But what about spirituality?
I feel it's much different from religion. I'll define spirituality here as recognizing yourself as part of something bigger. For instance, at a sub-cellular level, we're all just the same inorganic matter. Does this make us part of, or one with, the universe? When Einstein spoke of god, I believe this is something like what he meant. Many theists like to claim he was on their side, but actually he was referring not to a personified higher power, but the vast and complex universe, as god.
So I guess the main question to everyone is: what are your thoughts on spirituality(as defined above)?
"We are the star things harvesting the star energy"
-Carl Sagan
- Login to post comments
This goes back to the whole, why we need to call the universe God. Is everything there is something greater as an idea that everything together is "God" is a needless term. I think it originates from being in a culture where belief in God is so prevalent and every person likes to think that their personal definition of said God is closest to the actual God. In a larger framework, we are all connected in that we are matter that came from the same place and contain energy that will eventually desist.
I know that I used to think of God as the energy that binds all living things, but that all there is really is just physical reality unto which we project the metaphysical idea of "God" to mean energy, matter, the universe and its inhabitants. Why can't the universe just be the universe? I think its one of the last vestigial pieces of letting go of the idea of God, and realizing that the "idea" is so ingrained in our head by Mother Culture that the contrary idea that the term is not necessary to define anything in the natural world, is hard to wrap our head around. Its literally thinking outside the box.
As for spirituality, I would follow Sam Harris' lead on this and say that there is something to be said for having intensely focused moment to moment experiences. Meditating and having peak experiences concerning the possibilities of joy, wonder, and thankfulness for the gift of life can be very real and don't have to be expelled from rational thinking humans.
“Fear is the path to the dark side. Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to suffering.” Yoda
Sounds about right to me. I've been thinking about this kind of thing for years and came up with the same kinda stuff but whenever I try to talk to anyone about it they think I'm crazy or that I just think to much...so thanks for making me feel slightly less insane.
If anyone else has any different ideas though I'd still love to hear what they have to say....
"We are the star things harvesting the star energy"
-Carl Sagan
You are not alone in your philosophical cosmological thoughts, it feels good to here that sometimes.
“Fear is the path to the dark side. Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to suffering.” Yoda
I don't think the OP's version of 'spirituality' is typical of what people mean when they talk about spirituality. It doesn't just mean 'something greater than yourself', although that's the phrase that's thrown around. It usually means 'something *magical* greater than yourself'. It doesn't just mean 'the universe', it means 'the universe has a mind and causes things to happen for a reason'.
I've talked to people and explained to them that the universe is 'greater than myself', but they come back with 'yeah, but there's a purpose behind it all'. This is not much different from typical theistic beliefs. I think the key difference is that spirituality is more about experiences than about any particular creed. They emphasize the experience of 'feeling' that there is purpose and meaning behind what to you and me would call coincidences. A common saying of spiritualists is that 'there are no coincidences' or 'everything happens for a reason'.
I personally think there is a naturalist (i.e. non-magical) explanation for spiritual experiences. It mostly has to do with an intuitive mind-set that you allow yourself to fall back into. It is very similar to the intuitive mindset of children. Rational thinking, to a great extent, is characterized by an effort to deny the intuitive mindset, for the very good reason that many intuitions are systematically flawed. We call such flawed intuitions 'fallacies'. But when you allow yourself to be in the intuitive mindset, there IS a definite difference in the character of the experience. It is characterized by a sense of oneness, awe, wonder, and contentment. Everybody has had these experiences. Spiritualists specifically try to cultivate them. Unfortunately, they tend to eschew the benefits of rational thinking along the way. That's why the 'higher power' they emphasize is a magical mind-like one. It plays into the intuitive fallacy of anthropomorphization.
Wonderist on Facebook — Support the idea of wonderism by 'liking' the Wonderism page — or join the open Wonderism group to take part in the discussion!
Gnu Atheism Facebook group — All gnu-friendly RRS members welcome (including Luminon!) — Try something gnu!
I personally don't like the words god or spirituality. They have been forced on me. So I use them, and all religious such words, in a way to try and destroy religion .... and I really appreciate all your help and insight .... Here goes, (please fix my words)
I am god as you as all is god, as conveyed in the most divine holy 'spirit for truth' simple intuitive revelation as in the saving lovingly indignant Jesus/Buddha religion BASHING message, that all is One with the God father cosmos universe and this NOW is the kingdom of God and heaven ..... and so no more superstitious religion, nor prayer to a separate other, for that is the devil's hell spell keeping you a blind sinner, a fool hypocrite, an idol worshiper, and is blasphemy, as I AM the only way, the simple message that you are the "ONE", the "Force" just as the I AM is all of you ... those that worship me moses/jesus/buddha are sadly confused. I AM YOU. All is ONE.
etc ..... that ain't perfected yet , whatever
Ummm, I could just say "fuck all separate god / spirits" .... it's the same message. .... damn mess in my head, .... who done this to us , me ?
Atheism Books.
I consider myself a spiritual person, even though I don't believe in spirits or souls or any purpose to the universe. I am a little zen. I like to be in nature and feel the connection (caused by evolving in nature, not through spirits). I like to feel my connection with other people (some of them) and with myself when I am at peace. If you can manage to sink into a mental state of mu-shin (mind of no mind if you watched the Last Samurai), it feels very spiritual.
I guess my "oneness with the universe" is more about my mental state than anything else.
Zen-atheist wielding Occam's katana.
Jesus said, "Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division." - Luke 12:51
I hate the term spirituality and the notions attached to it, for good reason. The problem is one of coherency of expression. When I studied philosophy formally (it’s been some time), it was hammered into every single one of us, that if we could not express our ideas coherently and meaningfully, we would fail, and this has proved to be a very useful skill in detecting when people are not expressing ideas coherently and meaningfully to disguise that they have no ideas to begin with. An idea must be coherent and meaningful in order to act upon it. If an idea is neither, then it cannot be acted upon. The problem with notions such as “spiritual” is that they are so incoherent and so vague, so loose, that they seem to have virtually been designed with the aim in mind that they lacked the coherency to be acted upon, in which case, people would realize it is nonsense. Concepts like “higher being” and “something greater then ourselves” are little more than the linguistic equivalent of comfort food. They don’t meaningfully express coherent ideas. That is why I rather despise the concept of “spirituality”. Nobody has any idea what it means, nobody gives the notion rigorous epistemological treatment, and yet, for some reason, it is considered a “good thing” to “be spiritual” and a "bad thing" to "not be spiritual". We speak of "spiritual crises" and so forth. You understand where I am going with this. We seem to be more concerned with whatever vague and inexpressible or inarticulable propositions we wish to stay latched onto then any rigorous linguistic treatment of the notion, which is dishonest and vapid.
"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.
-Me
Books about atheism
I concur with DG that "spiritual" is an unsatisfying term, as all definitions commonly given are also unsatisfying. What do we do with perspectives about the composition of ourselves or the universe, but ply them for whatever their emotional content? I could just as easily swap an observation about the atomic structure that unifies us with our common need to eat and shit. It feels satisfying in a vague way to believe there's a connective thread between people, but this is probably because it behooves us to do so from a biological standpoint. Our ancestors needed to ally with each other to survive. Empathy, familiarity, etc., are more comforting abstractions than foreignness and inscrutability. And if we don't plug absolute values into these ideas, and merely think of these ideas themselves (like love), we can gain a small emotional impact from them.
I'm just talking off the cuff, but it seems superficially plausible to me.
I tried to define spirituality as I did because I realize many connotations are associated with religion. The point was to drop these and think about the idea of something larger that is in no way a conscious spirit or god, just something more.
I'm just wondering, do you all think that just because we weren't created by a big man in the sky that life is somehow less beautiful or miraculous? maybe it's still a natural and explainable phenomenon, but I see it as incredible anyway.
"We are the star things harvesting the star energy"
-Carl Sagan
I concur with DG and Magilum that the word spirituality is pretty much always a cover for an undefined or incoherent concept. If you have to resort to using the word, you probably don't have a valid point.
Like what?
That's not a rhetorical question. What do you mean, exactly, when you say "something more"? More than what? What kind of thing are you thinking of discovering? Is it bigger than a breadbox? This is what everyone has been saying. "Something more" is just another way of saying, "I have no idea what I'm talking about."
For me, life has been exponentially more beautiful and awe inspiring since I adopted a materialist worldview. Have a look at THIS ESSAY where I explain how the beauty of science trumps the hollow promises of religion.
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism
I'll have to admit that it is sort of a bogus term. I can't totally write it off though. It doesn't explain anything we can tangibly observe in the natural world, but people for some reason seem to feel it. Right now it's just something we know exists but can't define. All that means is we're ignorant to it's true workings, and can only hope we can reach a logical way of explaining it some day.
"We are the star things harvesting the star energy"
-Carl Sagan
"Feel that snorguphen!" "What? What's snorguphen?" "I can't define it, but, wow, can't you feel it?"
Definition is the root of communicating ideas. If something exists it has to be defined in some basic fashion before we can discuss it. As we learn about something that definition becomes more specific and more detailed.
You can be arbitrary about the definition, so long as you're clear about it (and aren't making up new definitions for established ideas). In the case of "spiritual" I think you might well be able to define it as "A class of pleasant emotional responses to external and internal stimuli associated with a sense of being a part of a greater whole, as in a member of a species, an active participant in a team, or as being a sentient portion of the universe."
"Anyone can repress a woman, but you need 'dictated' scriptures to feel you're really right in repressing her. In the same way, homophobes thrive everywhere. But you must feel you've got scripture on your side to come up with the tedious 'Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve' style arguments instead of just recognising that some people are different." - Douglas Murray
No. People feel something that we can describe in natural terms, and for some reason, which can be described in natural terms, they think it's not natural.
If people think God makes lightning, but it's actually from static buildup, then lightning is natural and god is still incoherent. If people think there's a spirit world, but what there really is is a belief that there is a spirit world, then belief in the spirit world is natural and the spirit world is incoherent.
We know no such thing. Some people think that they can just propose something incoherent and the proposition itself is enough to justify belief in the thing. This is a problem with critical thinking, not in defining an incoherent concept.
Your thinking is ass backwards. We don't start with an undefined concept and then go about trying to prove it. We start with observations of reality. When we observe reality, we see that 1) Lots of people believe in spirituality but can't define it, and 2) Things that can't be defined are incoherent.
We can discard #1 because any appeal to numbers is a fallacy. That leaves us with #2. Spirituality is incoherent.
End of story.
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism
There have always been things we know, or at least believe to exist without being able to explain it in words. Robert Pirsig explores this concept in detail in his book Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance. which, as he says in the book, has little to do with zen or motorcycles.
He explores the idea of quality, that some things are more desirable than others. we know some things are better than others, but how do we define what is good?
So I'll ask you a question raised in the book: What is quality in thought and statement?
"We are the star things harvesting the star energy"
-Carl Sagan
Don't let them confuse "unexamined" with "mysterious". Qualitative and quantitative really are well defined, what we consider good over bad is just as well defined - it can be one contorted definition, to be sure, and the history of that definition can be mired in an astonishing heap of flim-flam as groups of folks influence the overall zeitgeist, based on previous groups' influence, based on even earlier groups' influence... etc.
I hope I'm being clear here, unfortunately I don't have a great deal of practice with expressing my ideas.
"Anyone can repress a woman, but you need 'dictated' scriptures to feel you're really right in repressing her. In the same way, homophobes thrive everywhere. But you must feel you've got scripture on your side to come up with the tedious 'Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve' style arguments instead of just recognising that some people are different." - Douglas Murray
Unless there's some kind of spectacular insight I'm not aware of, this is just a simple mistake in critical thinking. Quality (value) doesn't exist in the same way that green exists. A plant has the physical property of reflecting light in such a way as to produce the appearance of what humans perceive as "green." Regardless of whether a human looks at it, it has those properties, and reflects light in that way. "Green" is a word we use to describe our perception of it, not the actual physical properties in question. "Green" exists in our head, but what makes something appear green exists whether we do or not.
"Quality," on the other hand, does not exist without observation. Furthermore, there is always a referential concept inherent in a quality judgment. In other words, if I say, "That is a good knife," I mean that it performs the task of cutting tomatoes well, or that it is sturdy, or that it has been crafted in a way that is aesthetically pleasing. I am measuring one or more of its properties against a concept in my head. Without a creature to wield the knife and make a cut in something, the knife is nothing more than one more hunk of molecules.
Ok, you're getting into dangerous ground here. Words are necessarily incomplete descriptors of the universe for a variety of reasons. This is not disputed. However, the limitations of words are philosophical, not material. Whether I can adequately define the word, "the," it accomplishes its task in language. To say that the philosophical limitations of words are justification for the existence of the incoherent is equivalent to saying that the existence of paradoxes in Quantum Physics is justification for a particular rock both existing and not existing at the same time. It's a fallacy of composition, or maybe it's a category error. In any case, it's misusing a philosophical conundrum to justify an empirical statement.
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism
I'd have to agree. I think that's the main reason this thread has continued as long as it has. I guess it's like it's been said earlier, the word and even the concept of spirituality is basically just something we use when we have no solid idea as to what we're talking about.
When I posted this I think I was trying to express the ideas put forth in Hambydammit's essay, that life could still be beautiful and complex even with(or possibly because of) scientific explanation. Not knowing exactly what to call it, I just fell back on the word most people use when confused about these feelings.
I'm sure you're not used to hearing this on this site since you mostly debate theists who won't admit defeat at any cost, but I think you proved your point to me. Thanks to everyone who participated, I think I really learned something here.
"We are the star things harvesting the star energy"
-Carl Sagan
Yo language titans. Here's an obvious short example of why the word itself, "Spirituality", is nearly worthless. It's definition is too broad, like the word "god". On the up side tho, it's often helpful to shaking off religious dogma ..... an improved spell
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spirituality
Atheism Books.
If my chair didn't have a back, I'd have just fallen over backwards!
It is extremely rare for anyone to change their mind, and even more rare for them to admit it. Thank you very much. You've made my day!
Really, I should add a paragraph or two in that essay about the word spirituality. We have words to describe the way atheists feel when they contemplate the mysteries and immensities of the universe, but we've been conditioned by the almost ubiquitous concept of spirituality to feel that they are inadequate to the task. The reality is that spirituality is inadequate, and the other words are accurate.
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism
glad to help, even in a small way. I actually posted this in the interest of learning something, so I'm grateful you took the time to help.
This is actually kind of sad. I think most people have a natural tendency to classify the unique and beautiful as supernatural and science as cold and lacking in humanity. We as atheists should really try to erase the prejudice people have that science can't be appealing on an emotional and logical basis. I don't think nearly as many people would cling to their old religions if they lost this precept.
"We are the star things harvesting the star energy"
-Carl Sagan
I agree on all points
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism
What you describe here is the impetus behind my coinage of the word 'wonderism'. I'm seeking to explore religion and spirituality with a naturalistic vocabulary and language, rather than obscurantist bullshit, and furthermore expressing, as Hamby has in his essay, the wonder of the scientific and naturalistic worldview. God is imaginary. Wonder is real.
Wonderist on Facebook — Support the idea of wonderism by 'liking' the Wonderism page — or join the open Wonderism group to take part in the discussion!
Gnu Atheism Facebook group — All gnu-friendly RRS members welcome (including Luminon!) — Try something gnu!
I think that the experience s people think of as 'spiritual' is something many, if not all, people will feel under certain circumstances. I think it triggers some people to associate it with some sort of 'communion' with a 'higher power' or some other religiously inspired idea if they are so primed by their current beliefs and/or world view.
When I have felt intense feelings when contemplating some truly beautiful landscape, such as my first view of Yosemite Valley, I just enjoy the 'high' to intensify the moment.
I like the way a prominent Australian atheist who does a regular late night radio talk show, Philip Adams, refers to 'the sense of the numinous' to describe the non-religious version of this experience.
I truly resent the way religious believers have appropriated this common human experience as an intrinsically 'religious' thing but I can understand why they do it. Rather than being an experience that only a 'true believer' can genuinely have, as a validation of religion, I think it is the other way round - the experience itself, inspired by the gut reaction to the wonder of nature, perhaps, has been a prime trigger of religious ideas in susceptible minds.
IOW the 'spiritual' experience inspired certain people to devise religious concepts to 'explain' the experience, rather than religious beliefs allowing us to have such experiences.
Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality
"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris
The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me
From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology
There's a somewhat common occurrence experienced by musicians. Where I grew up, all the musicians called it "Musicians' Euphoria." I have no idea if there's a real name for it. Sometimes, while you're playing something, especially something intensely complicated, you hit a kind of "removed" state where things are just happening, and you feel as if you are no longer in control. Instead, it's as if you're watching yourself play, all the while experiencing the music in an incredibly focused and intense way. (No, it's not drug induced. At least it wasn't in me.) I experienced it the first time while playing one of Liszt's Transcendental Etudes, appropriately enough. The etude lasts about ten or eleven minutes, but when it was over, I couldn't have told you if I had been playing for two minutes or twenty unless I knew intellectually what the length was. I had lost awareness of the audience. I was truly startled when I heard the clapping.
Our brains are really neat gadgets. The really awesome thing is that I don't have to explain that experience by resorting to goddidit. It was my brain giving me some kind of crazy trip because of some kind of genetic hardwiring. I don't know the particulars, but I don't need to. It was an incredible experience that is seared into my memory in ways that others are not.
It wouldn't surprise me a bit if the first people to invent religion were suffering from epilepsy.
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism
You don't know that....
Actually, I've seen a number of people here follow this line of reasoning... making a leap in logic from the lack of personal observation of a person who meets a certain criteria and generalizing that to conclude that no such person exists... surely this ought to be a known logical fallacy. It's like arriving at the conclusion of pigeon-holing without actually doing the pigeon-holing.
I wouldn't assume it was hardwiring. Neuroplasticity is an amazing thing.
Religion doesn't and never has held "spirituality" (I hesitate to call it that because "spirit" implies superstitious nonsense). You can be a deeply "spiritual" person without all the claptrap of religion. I love what Sam Harris has written about the topic.
WoW! that was really good.Did you ever read "NOAM Chomsky" the MIT linguist and philosopher.
Signature ? How ?
Ah... Quasar... don't make us pull out the theist whomping stick! You're better than this. Language is thoroughly documented worldwide. Every culture advanced enough to have linguists has some kind of concept of god, or spirituality, or something close enough for government work. If someone had come up with a coherent definition of spirituality, it would be headline news all over the world. Theologists, philosophers, and linguists the world over have been trying to define it for centuries.
The bottom line is that no, neither I nor DG know for certain that nobody on the planet has a good definition of spirituality. However, the evidence that this is true is overwhelming, and until we are presented with such a definition, must assume that it does not exist. Remember the burden of proof?
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism
Isn't every atom in the cosmos "spiritual" ? If not, Damn YOU ..... all is ONE , un-separtable .... NOTHING IS SEPARATE
NOTHING
NOTHING
*
*
*
*
*
Atheism Books.
Signature ? How ?
Yup , Religion is "Opium of the People"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opium_of_the_people
"Why I Am Not a Christian" is an essay by the BritishphilosopherBertrand Russell hailed by The Independent as "devastating in its use of cold logic," and listed in the New York Public Library's list of the most influential books of the 20th century. ))) wiki
My dad loved this guy and read him to us, his lucky 5 kids .....
Here's the short xlint "ancient" essay !
http://users.drew.edu/~jlenz/whynot.html
Atheism Books.
Actually, the burden of proof is what prompted my objection, lol.
My sense of logic has its roots in computer science, where a scenario not anticipated and properly handled is a bug that, given enough executions of a program with enough different users in enough different environments could result in the program behaving unexpectedly. For example, in this case:
The scenario not considered is that a person came up with a coherent definition of spirituality and chose not to share it with the general public. Unlikely? Perhaps, but there are a lot of people in the world... a lot of different scenarios... and the more "executions" of a program in different settings, the more likely a "bug" is to surface.
In a more general sense, I've learned to attribute false beliefs to insufficient diligence in considering and evaluating alternative explanations. We see examples of this all the time. How many stories of why someone chose to believe in a god, ghosts, psychics, etc. have obvious other explanations? But, rather than trying to consider all possibilities and falsify each of them without bias, people tend to choose the one that most fits their current world view until given a reason to accept that their conclusion was incorrect, and only then do they seriously consider the alternatives. Worse yet, many people often tend to assume that people who arrive at different conclusions must be wrong or crazy. In the sense of discriminating between thought processes that are reliable and those which are not, (i.e. sound logic vs. fallacious logic), isn't the appropriate test universal applicability? If so, how can we say that it's rational for us to choose explanations that fit our world views without giving due consideration to other explanations, when that way of thinking produces contradictory results when used by different people?
Back to the issue at hand, though.... It looks to me like you might be trying to reduce the odds of someone coming up with a coherent definition of spirituality and not sharing it by saying that in order for someone to come up with a coherent definition of spirituality, they would have to properly consider all or most of those cultures, and to do that they would probably have to be an academic, in which case it would be in their best interest to publish the definition for the notoriety gain. If true, I would say that this line of reasoning is sufficient justification for the belief that no one has come up with a coherent definition of spirituality. However, this line of reasoning appears to depend on 2 assumptions:
1) Ideas of spirituality across cultures throughout history are varied enough in their natures that a layman couldn't just study, say, 10 different well-known religions/mythologies and 10 different types of well-known atheistic psychic/spiritual claims and be able to determine from that data set a common criteria which accurately defines the set of ideas that are considered spiritual.
Now, I'm not a historian, so I really have no idea whether or not this assumption is true. I would expect, however, that if spiritual ideas are a product of human nature, that there should be a certain pattern to these things which would be discernible without examining all of the available material. If anyone here is a historian and actually knows of some ancient civilization which has some fundamentally unique concept of spirituality, please point me in that direction... I love learning about different ideas and would be very curious about something like that.
2) Spiritual phenomena do not exist in the real world, so the only source of information about spiritual ideas would be imagination, and examining spiritual claims (which would ultimately have to have originated from someone's imagination).
As far as I'm aware, the only evidence currently available to justify this assumption is that there are so many people that have an unjustified belief in spiritual claims, or make dishonest spiritual claims. So, with due diligence, I try to think of every possible explanation which fits this evidence, trying to divorce my analysis from my personal expectation, because I know that my expectation is the product of my world view, and is therefore subject to bias. At the moment, I can think of 3 plausible explanations which fit this evidence:
A) Spiritual phenomena do not exist in the real world, and every case of someone believing that spiritual phenomena do exist is simply a case of wishful thinking and all spiritual claims are simply cons.
B) Spiritual phenomena do exist in the real world, but are either very rare or very difficult to make practical use of, such that spiritual phenomena are only observed by a very small percentage of the population. A few such people over the course of history would be enough to seed the idea that spiritual phenomena are possible, but the nature of spiritual phenomena would not be generally understood, which greedy, dishonest people would see as a very easy situation to take advantage of.
C) Spiritual phenomena do exist in the real world, but are so commonplace and subtle that they are easy to overlook. As such, people might subconsciously pick up on them, but be consciously unaware, which might create an emotional bias towards believing spiritual claims as a way of trying to consciously make sense of the subtle details which the subconscious observed. And then, again, of course con artists would take note of this tendency and contrive ways to use it to their advantage.
So, how to rationally choose which of these 3 explanations is correct? Since all 3 fit the stated evidence, that evidence doesn't help us choose. We can't use any conclusions which are derived from any of them as justification, because that would be circular logic. So B or C, as far as I'm aware, could only be justified by observing actual spiritual phenomena in practice, and then determining that they were not cons through falsification. A, as far as I'm aware, could only be justified by understanding the nature of reality and showing that there's not room for spiritual phenomena... and it seems that the more we learn through science, the more apparent it becomes that there's still a lot we don't yet know. So, the way I see it, anyone who claims that any of these 3 explanations is correct is making a positive claim and taking on a burden of proof to provide justification for the claim.
This is gonna be longer, but as I hope, interesting. Dear quoters, feel free to pick a small part.
I will try to explain the concept of spirituality.
What we see as human being, the body, mind and emotions, is just a tip of an iceberg, a small part of what belongs to us. We're aware just of that small part, the most isolated one, but the great rest of us, from time to time, demands an attention.
People will be never satisfied with a strictly "materialistic" world, because a majority of every human being is of spiritual nature and it sometimes shows up. This is exponential, the more a group of people is under influence of their spiritual counterparts, the smaller the group is.
There are milliards of spiritually practically unaware people, and about 63 of those, who are completely merged with their former spiritual counterparts. This is a huge difference in numbers, and a relationship between the numbers is exponentially decreasing.
Spirituality, the influence of the rest of the iceberg, comes in many forms. We're used to a religion as the only representation of it, but it's only one of many. It was just historically prevalent, and much to a harm of people. This overgrown weed needs to be trimmed, so there will be more place for other forms of spirituality.
Spiritual thing is whatever carries out the intention of our superconsciousness in this material world. Humanists are spiritual, artists as well, businessmen can be too. Superconsciousness tries to direct people to what is best for their development, whether they know about it, or not.
By manifesting that intention, that purpose into the material world, we do whatever God, parents, or we, can ever possibly demand from ourselves. If you do something and you like that job of yours, it feels right for you, and yet you have enough for challenges and opportunities to learn, it's probably that.
And then there is a D group, people who rationally observe spiritual phenomena in the world, practise them, participate on them, research them further and make lectures and semminaries about it. This group is small, compared to a world population, and usually unknown. For christians, we're pagans, devil worshippers, spiritists and heretics, for so-called rational people we're deluded. (besides real devil worshippers and deluded people)
I speak from my own experience, when I and many people around observes a spiritual phenomena quite often, some daily, monthly, annually. I might be a bit exaggerating now about some of them (not me) but we feel spiritual energies, like we can feel a wind, rain and sunlight, we see a sense and meaning, where others were taught to not search for it. And we do it for our personal development. Other people are free to do their form personal development as they want, and it won't be significantly slower, nor they will go to Hell. There are simply choices which leads to development, and which doesn't, these choices are present in all areas of human life.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
When you touch a fire, you don't think like "uh, this has a temperature about 681 degrees of Celsius, and my tissue can withstand about 50, I think I should move my arm back...". No, not at all.
I want to say, that everything above emotions is either logical, or even more advanced, which is perceived as intuitive, or so advanced, that it has no reasonable human equivalent. This means, that these things like spirituality should and must be expressed in a way accessible to everyone. We should prove and describe a structure of spiritual existence. This structure is quite complex, enough to embrace and explain all great and small questions about life and world. It's not a doctrine, it's a description of what it is, and it hides knowledge comparable in it's value to a discovery of electricity or microscope. I mean, it's scientific knowledge, usable in all areas of human life.
This is why we shouldn't ingore "spiritual stuff". I can describe it to you like acting on a very, very low and subtle sub-atomary level, interacting with a finer aspects of matter and energy. Or attempting for it
So-called "spiritual stuff" is a jungle. It's full of delusions, half-truths, cults, misinformations, commercial interests, and there's a great mess in therms and their semantics.
Therms are coherent only among groups, for example Scientologists (fuck em) has theirs, christians has also theirs (of biblical origin) like "harlot Babylonic" or "divine lamb", and also these from sanskrit are very popular. For example, "karma" means "action and result". Some groups are really advanced, (like the one meeting in my house
Is there a rationality alert blinking red? Should we believe only in what we can touch or see? Let's learn aura vision or etheric-material touch sensitivity, (like me) the problem is gone, and a serious work on introducing these phenomenons to science may continue. If scientists will understand it, a great burden of work will be taken from "spiritual" people and scientists will have a brand-new, shiny and huge playground, which will put in awe the greatest minds of today.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Of course, we must compare the experiences afterwards.
Hamby, you've earned even more of my respect! Whatever it means for you. Mystics talk about such a state of consciousness, and you've had it! That's what I mean, even humanists, secularists, and no matter how godless atheists can be spiritual, though they wouldn't call it so.
I believe you would accept "spirituality" if it would be properly introduced to you, but there's no need, you already have your means of knowing it, in a way which is natural for you. Now all you need is to recognize that spirituality also in others, where it is, of course, those you can take seriously.
Btw, on what instruments do you play? Ferenc Liszt? Sorry for my ignorance, dunno if he was a man of piano or violin. Otherwise I have a great respect to musicians, because I hear a beautiful music in my head before a sleep, and musicians are those who actually can manifest it in the material world. Yeah, art is essentially one of ways of expressing the will of superconsciousness.
Beings who deserve worship don't demand it. Beings who demand worship don't deserve it.
It's long past time the Atheists take "Spirituality" and of course "Jesus the Buddha" back for ourselves in an enlightened logical meaningful way to shine brightly thru the dark cloud the blind religious have cast upon us that are "awake" ....
"SPIRITUALITY, GOD AND THE ATHEIST MIND" Atheist Bible site
http://www.atheistbible.net/
((( I haven't read much in there but seems pretty cool so far ....
Atheists for Jesus site has some good ideas, "Designed to provide a method of communication between religious and non-religious people who believe in the message of Jesus." .... Dawkins wears that "Atheist for Jesus" t-shirt ....
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=atheists+for+jesus&btnG=Google+Search
Atheism Books.
Atheistbible.net does it in the kosher atheistic way, based on scientific knowledge, so when science will expand, the atheists' spirituality will improve, which is surely better than having it practically the same for next 2000 years, isn't it?
I'll check out the Atheists for Jesus later.
Beings who deserve worship don't demand it. Beings who demand worship don't deserve it.