@jeeprs,
jeeprs;73582 wrote:There are parts of the mind, or heart, that have to become 'spiritually activated' for certain realities to be seen ('Tosh', would be the response on the Dawkins forum. I know - that was the first forum I actually joined. And actually this is the main theological argument they use over there, or subtle variants such as 'rubbish', 'nonsense' or the ever-popular 'bollocks').
Well I don't want to indulge in such callow boorishness, but it does strike me that all claims to feelings of spirituality hinge on a sort of numinous but vague set of assertions and feelings that are never actually defined.
And talking to a biologist, or fan of biologists, about how the heart is a seat of emotion isn't going to win any sort of regard.
So when you say that "spiritual activation is required of the mind for certain realities to be seen" I suspect you are using rather vague language to make an even vaguer claim. I mean, if I were to say "what reality have you percieved due to a mental or medative process that someone who didn't feel spiritual could not understand?" what would you say?
I'll be honest - to me it sounds quite an arrogant thing to claim and almost childish - along the lines of "you'll never know how I feel" or "I you could see things my way it'd blow your mind".
Well, of course I don't know what it is to feel spiritual, because I deny that "spiritual" has any value beyond the metaphorical. However, I suspect that what feelings and thoughts tend to be labelled spiritual are a crutch to help people get by in the real world - and I don't think I need or want the crutch. I enjoy fiction, music, and flights of fancy, but I don't see why they can't be appreciated as honest artful constructs.
Quote:As for what I meant by 'changing your mind' - very badly expressed on my part, I should re-phrase it. What I mean is, you or I might be very interested in life, or have a great sense of scientific curiosity, and it may well be possible for an intelligent and well-integrated person to sustain this throughout their life.
Sure, something might happen - but I'll cross that bridge when I come to it - if I come to it. Don't the vast majority of people cope in this way?
Quote:But I do wonder how robust this is in the face of the many vicissitudes of existence, without an over-arching sense of purpose such as that traditionally provided by spiritual culture.
I don't see how goal setting is something that religious people are somehow better facilitated for than the irreligious. To return to Dawkins - he has made himself one of the worlds most eminent educators, become well-known and wealthy, understood a body of difficult learning and reiterated it for a mass audience, and he has set himself the unattainable goal of tearing down religion.
Laughable perhaps - but all this isn't indicative of purposelessness.
Quote:In that context, religious practice is not an intellectual argument, but what you do every day, the basis for the way you treat people and how you conduct yourself, and also a big part of your connection to the community and the world as a whole.
Only if you want to credit religion with things it may not deserve.
Quote:When it is internalized in this way, through one's behaviors and day-to-day life, it generates a deep level of emotional well-being, I believe, provided it remains healthy. And there is empirical evidence for this.
There is empirical evidence to suggest theism leads one to be more likely to commit a violent crime, be responsible for teenage pregancy, and support war and torture - things I think are indicative of poor emotional well-being, anti-social attitudes and bad behaviour. It's not the whole story, because religious beleif is also corrolated with poverty and lack of education, but it is sort of telling.
Quote:When I say that nihilism is a real threat, it may not be for an intelligent person such as yourself, but, I would argue, the ridiculous hysteria that is being displayed over the death of uber-narcissist Michael Jackson, or the fixation in the popular press with celebrities: I would suggest that a great deal of this is misplaced spirituality, and that Hollywood has become, in the popular imagination, a kind of Valhalla where those gods and goddesses (='stars') get the nearest thing to immortality the modern world has to offer (= 'rich and famous', with plenty of sex thrown in).
I agree to a certain extent that the worship of idols in this manner isn't appealing. However, it's certainly not nihilistic - nihilism isn't misplacing spirituality - it's about realising that the only person who can ultimately assign values, meaning and purpose to you is you.
Quote:They are not looking for an intellectual rationale. They are instinctively seeking to inoculate themselves against nihilism.
Sure, they don't want to take responsibility for themselves, perhaps?
Quote:Afraid not. To bind, yes, but 'bind people together'? Not at all.
I think that's an optimistic interpretation with little actual proof beyond your hunch.
But to be fair, I made a pessimistic interpretation on the same sort of hunch, so I'm not getting at you.
Quote:To the athiest - to Dawkins, certainly - spirituality of whatever stripe is an oppressive force, a retrogression to superstition and a pre-scientific mentality.
Or just simply a lie people tell themselves. I don't see it as oppressive - but I've yet to see it defined really. The spine tingling awe one recieves in the presence of something one loves? Why is that spiritual rather than endorphic? Because people want it to be? Because the roots of the awesome cannot be acknowledged to be mundane? I think that's reaching for assumptions that aren't based in truth.
Quote: It is completely different from the viewpoint of one who has had a taste of what it is really about.
What is it really about?
