Secular Spirituality and Religious Naturalism

@Krumple,

Krumple;89699 wrote:

I think religion will ultimately be replaced with science. Because in effect, science and religion are attempting to do the same thing. Science just has a much more neutral outlook where as religion tries to state itself as actual. There are those who hate science for this reason but inevitably they will realize that they can no longer apologize for the ignorance of their former knowledge.

religion has been misused and abused over the ages. i suppose that science can also be misused and abused, whatever there is on earth someone will find a way to do that.

what if science is able to separate and substantiate the essence of religion by debunking its dogma? what if religion can accept science in all aspects of life, including spirituality? just another silly aspiration in that recurring dream of mine (unity). and you are right, they are both attempting to do the exact same thing.

1 Reply

@salima,

Hi
As it goes, science and religion are both part of processes of knowledge. We, humans are extremely found of knowledge. One material part of processing the knowldge is debating.
Like in this debate, i found the word 'debunk' very interesting. It made me think how debunking the ideas, beliefs and dogmas, thesis etc have actually contributed to the overall knowledge of mankind. Both the pros and cons of an issue gives a neutral observer to balance his view, so that a correct conclusion can be drawn.

Science has to reconcile with spirituality, while religion has to become more scientific. This is the order of the day. I think, the process is on.

And salimaji, unity is a concept having notional value. Science helps the cause of unity, and your expose on morality also shows that if logically applied it would lead to universal rules and restrictions. Religion by helping maintaining peace can only help science in its march to attain unity. I see this compactibility happening in practise.

more and more people are getting spiritual, scientific and secular. And thats a good trend.

0 Replies

@Krumple,

Krumple;89699 wrote:

I think religion will ultimately be replaced with science. Because in effect, science and religion are attempting to do the same thing. Science just has a much more neutral outlook where as religion tries to state itself as actual. There are those who hate science for this reason but inevitably they will realize that they can no longer apologize for the ignorance of their former knowledge.

Interesting. Could you perhaps refer to a religious account of the movement of physical masses or the composition of materials? A religious account of plate tectonics or quantum mechanics? No?

I am being facetious to illustrate the point that 'religion and spirituality' are not in the least concerned with the phenomena of interest to scientific investigation. In fact one of the reasons for the entire conflict between the two was because of religious dogma being interpreted as a factual account of the movement of heavenly bodies (which was indeed largely at the instigation of religious conservatives whom I believe are 'clinging to views').

I myself have never understood religious mythology or spiritual philosophy this way. Perhaps this is one of the reasons you appear so aggravated with the subject matter. They deal with a completely different level and kind of understanding. Buddhism, for example, describes the psychological factors that lead to destructive behaviours. The Judeo-Christian tradition contains mythical accounts of creation but also a great deal besides on practical ethics and ways to attain spiritual maturity.

Einstein was distinctly religious in a non-sectarian, non-dogmatic and non-organisational way. He said, for example, 'I know there are those who are atheists, but what really annoys me is when the quote me for support of that idea'. (Einstein, His Life and Universe, Walter Isaacson.)

As for the religious fundamentalists who believe in literal intepretation of the Bible, I am completely opposed to that outlook, but on the other hand, it is a free society, and if people want to believe it, it is their perogative. I don't think anything needs to be done to suppress this view because it will inevitably die out or remain marginal.

But I do wish you would understand that these are largely different types of understanding about different realms of experience.

1 Reply

@jeeprs,

jeeprs;89786 wrote:

Interesting. Could you perhaps refer to a religious account of the movement of physical masses or the composition of materials? A religious account of plate tectonics or quantum mechanics? No?

That is not what I am talking about.

jeeprs;89786 wrote:

I myself have never understood religious mythology or spiritual philosophy this way. Perhaps this is one of the reasons you appear so aggravated with the subject matter.

I am not aggravated by the subject matter. That is where you are wrong. I am simply saying to keep religion to oneself and leave others choices for themselves. I have absolutely no problem with people believing what ever they wish to, I am only asking for the same respect in return.

jeeprs;89786 wrote:

As for the religious fundamentalists who believe in literal intepretation of the Bible, I am completely opposed to that outlook, but on the other hand, it is a free society, and if people want to believe it, it is their perogative. I don't think anything needs to be done to suppress this view because it will inevitably die out or remain marginal.

I am not trying to suppress it, only sparking the individual to investigate rather than just accepting. I am the catalyst for inquisitive behavior. If we do nothing, we are bound to remain adhering to ignorance. That kind of inactivity is the same as allowing someone to drown even though you could have done something about it.

jeeprs;89786 wrote:

But I do wish you would understand that these are largely different types of understanding about different realms of experience.

It is all JUST experience. It belongs to nothing else other than experience. So why is it necessary to chop it up and give some portion over to spirituality and hand the rest over to science? That makes no sense. They both belong to the human experience and the will ultimately be understood the same way.

0 Replies

@jeeprs,

No I am afraid not. I don't know why this is so hard to communicate. I will try one more time. Science is about understanding things, objects, forces, energy, and other objective phenomena. Religion and spirituality discuss the human condition, the transcendent, the nature of experience, the numinous, and so on. Nothing you have written indicates you have any understanding of that.

I have read various aspects of spirituality and religion for years, I find a lot of meaning in it and much of interest. So what is the point in talking to someone who says 'well, it is all going to be replaced by science'? It just says you have no interest in the subject, only hostility towards it. As this is a philosophy of religion forum, why bother? What is the point, really?

Perhaps if you had an interest in those kinds of things, it would be worth discussing further, but I really can't see how we can progress. I find talking to this attitude just as frustrating as you probably find arguing with a fundamentalist. So that is probably about it for this particular dialog.

---------- Post added 09-12-2009 at 09:19 PM ----------

Anyway below was something I intended to present for discussion before being sidetracked into whether science would replace religion :brickwall:.

[QUOTE=salima;89608].... the feeling of not being whole-people often reach out to the opposite sex to complete them, or harmful things like addictions and obsessions, and have depression and loneliness that they cant explain-that feling of being alone in a crowd. i suspect it is because we are denying the better part of our own nature by throwing out all aspects of spirituality.[/QUOTE]

Quote:

From Trying to Become Real: A Buddhist Critique of Some Secular Heresies by David Loy

2 Replies

@jeeprs,

Spirituality will likely always have it's place in our hearts; I see no reason to debunk it at all. The human 'heart' will want to postulate, try and conceptualize possibilities and reach for what is unknown. Like anything else, this has its dark side - but so what: Doesn't everything?

I also don't really see any need to pit one against the other; not intrinsically. Where what we can reasonably know about our collective reality conflicts with what we believe, that too is up to the thinker to resolve, or not, as they see fit.

Secular spirituality, as shown in the opening post here, is just fine and an excellent encapsulation of - what appears to be - an emerging dominant mindset. Though I'm by no means a believer in any sense of the word, I like it - it seems to 'jive' and is rather innocuous, as compared to many traditional belief and spirituality systems.

... or so it appears to me

0 Replies

@jeeprs,

jeeprs;89796 wrote:

---------- Post added 09-12-2009 at 09:19 PM ----------

Anyway below was something I intended to present for discussion before being sidetracked into whether science would replace religion :brickwall:.

From Trying to Become Real: A Buddhist Critique of Some Secular Heresies by David Loy

this is a bit different than what i had meant, but it would do as a scientific explanation actually. for instance, i keep saying the ego thinks it is your self but it is not-and in fact there is no self at all. which i find funny, but as you pointed out enough clever minds who realized this (or agreed with this) went mad. maybe i am on my way, who knows. so scientifically speaking, once the psyche gets over itself and admits that there is no self, it should be able to handle the idea and get on with life. but that doesnt seem to be happening. perhaps pointing to the error of the theory? not to mention the fact that it would not necessarily require humanity to invent a creator/father god and all the surrounding myths to deal with the issue. they could have just created a myth that there is an afterlife and everything will be hunky dory then, so nothing to worry about.

what i had in mind was more the idea that the loss of wholeness and unity we suffer here is the cause of all pain and sorrow. that is the spiritual aspect, the intangible unprovable and immeasurable sense of loss because it is not even formally recognized. we are in denial of our unity-that is my guess. i believe that once we know there is no other we will realize no more anger or pain or loneliness or frustration or meaninglessness.

however, there is something wrong with my reasoning, otherwise i would be a much more happy person. so either i have not yet in fact realized what i claim to believe, or i am wrong and realize something that is totally false or short of the mark of the issue. i believe my experiential knowledge of the unity of reality and the reality of unity-but i dont know if it is at all relevant to my own condition let alone anyone else's.

is it possible to have to go through two dark nights of the soul? is it possible in fact to survive two of them?

1 Reply

@prothero,

Spirituality seems to be nothing more than an attempt to reconcile the differences between our internal impressions and our external impressions. So long as we are willing to assume that external objects we perceive do have an existence seperate from our preceptions of them, then the consideration that these impressions come from different sources renders such reconciliation completely unnecessary.

There is no contradiction in viewing the external world as a cold, uncaring, even deterministic place, all while still enjoying the feeling of freedom that I receive when i make choices, the sense of morality that guides my actions, and the sense of aesthetics that allows me to see beauty in life.

prothero;89317 wrote:

Personally, I despise materialism. It gives a completely inadequate world view, deprives man of his freedom and moral responsibility, denies the reality of subjective experience, and makes all ethical and aesthetic values subject to relativism or nihilism. Materialism forces one to accept in theory what must be denied in practice (in living). It fails the traditional task of philosophy to integrate experience, reason, values and aesthetics. In a similar vein I think logical positivism; linguistic analysis and analytic philosophy are a denial of the traditional tasks of philosophy.

It is lucky for us then that we do not begin with philosophy and derive our sense of freedom, moral responsibility, and the convincingness of our subjective experiences from its doctrines.

0 Replies

@jeeprs,

[QUOTE=salima;89608] it is interesting though how the idea has persisted for so long and people are so willing to fight about it to the death. [/QUOTE]
Religion is a constant feature of all cultures and all times. People are willing to fight to the death for "freedom or love" subjective truths but are not likely to risk injury for "big bang versus steady state cosmology" objective or scientific truth. Subjective truths embrace ethics and aesthetics (values) objective truths do not.

[QUOTE=salima;89608] the usual reasons guessed are fear of death and oblivion, fear of responsibility, fear of abandonment, fear of change, etc-always fear. i should think we could have imagined something more comforting than what most religions offer to alleviate our fears! [/QUOTE] I think religion is the inevitable result of being a self reflective self aware creature, aware of its own mortality and aware of the larger world. It is an effort to formulate an answer to existential angst (anxiety). One can only imagine the anxieties of life during the Dark Ages. The promise of a better world to come must have been most enticing.

[QUOTE=salima;89608] spirituality simply means that there is more to everything than what we can observe and measure. there need not be any sense of divinity or deity and in and of itself it is hardly able to provide a moral code. that is something we must work out for ourselves using the faculties we have and the experience we are exposed to. [/QUOTE] God is most commonly conceived as both rational and moral agent. This is particularly true in Western Judeo-Christian-Islamic theology.

[QUOTE=salima;89608] this tends to explain the feeling of not being whole-people often reach out to the opposite sex to complete them, or harmful things like addictions and obsessions, and have depression and loneliness that they cant explain-that feling of being alone in a crowd. i suspect it is because we are denying the better part of our own nature by throwing out all aspects of spirituality. [/QUOTE] This strikes me as the theme of alienation or separation from God and from nature. This is one of the conceptions of the meaning of "original sin" in religion, "existential angst" in philosophy and "hierarchy of needs" in psychology. Man separated from the divine, from nature, from community is not whole.

[QUOTE=salima;89608] all that needs to be done is to separate the structure of religion from the experience of spirituality. then start with a blank slate and look at it again... [/QUOTE] "spiritual but not religious" a common phrase employed by those who reject organized religion but still cling to notions of transcendent value and purpose.

---------- Post added 09-12-2009 at 05:26 PM ----------

[QUOTE=Krumple;89699]I think religion will ultimately be replaced with science. Because in effect, science and religion are attempting to do the same thing. Science just has a much more neutral outlook where as religion tries to state itself as actual. There are those who hate science for this reason but inevitably they will realize that they can no longer apologize for the ignorance of their former knowledge.[/QUOTE]
Science in dealing only with the material aspects of reality (externally observable and measurable properties) inherently gives only an incomplete and partial view of reality. The task of religion or philosophy (if you prefer) is to give a more comprehensive view or explanation of all of "reality" which would include both subjective experience (values, ethics and aesthetics) as well as objective experience (the material aspects of reality). Thus IMV religion and philosophy are called upon to perform a larger task than science. The notion that "science" viewing objects from the outside "externally" as it were, will ultimately explain all and predict all is a metaphysical position most commonly termed "scientism". It is a speculation or assumption and not a scientific one at that.

[QUOTE=Jackofalltrades;89784] Science has to reconcile with spirituality, while religion has to become more scientific. This is the order of the day. I think, the process is on. [/QUOTE] I am curious as to your view of the nature of this process.
I would say religion must give up supernaturalism. Science must acknowledge its inherent limitations in addressing only the material (res extensa) properties of reality. i.e. abandon exclusive claims to determining truth and existence. What would spirituality compatible with science look like for you?

[QUOTE=Jackofalltrades;89784] And salimaji, unity is a concept having notional value. Science helps the cause of unity, and your expose on morality also shows that if logically applied it would lead to universal rules and restrictions. Religion by helping maintaining peace can only help science in its march to attain unity. I see this compactibility happening in practise. [/QUOTE] In what way does science address values and aesthetics in your view? I would say science gives only a partial and incomplete accounting of "experience" and thus of reality and that this limitation is inherent.

[QUOTE=Jackofalltrades;89784] more and more people are getting spiritual, scientific and secular. And thats a good trend.[/QUOTE] I agree depending on what one means by "scientific", "secular" and "spiritual".

---------- Post added 09-12-2009 at 05:37 PM ----------

[QUOTE=Krumple;89788] It is all JUST experience. It belongs to nothing else other than experience. So why is it necessary to chop it up and give some portion over to spirituality and hand the rest over to science? That makes no sense. They both belong to the human experience and the will ultimately be understood the same way.[/QUOTE] I agree the task of philosophy is to integrate spirituality with science or if one prefers the subjective psychic aspects of experience with the objective physical aspects of experience. For me any comprehensive world view will involve philosophical speculation or metaphysical assumption. That does not mean the abandonment of reason, of science, of empiricism, but it does involve going beyond the purely objective and physical aspects of existence. It does involve imagination and intuition.

[QUOTE=Khethil;89811] Secular spirituality, as shown in the opening post here, is just fine and an excellent encapsulation of - what appears to be - an emerging dominant mindset. Though I'm by no means a believer in any sense of the word, I like it - it seems to 'jive' and is rather innocuous, as compared to many traditional belief and spirituality systems. [/QUOTE] What is the nature of the "emerging dominant mindset" as you see it? What philosophical or rational form does it take?

2 Replies

@jeeprs,

In keeping with all the above, I would like to observe that seeking a real 'description of the world' in either science or religion is in some ways an expression of the same underlying need.

This is the need to feel certainty, to have a feeling that your overall understanding of the world makes sense and can accomodate your experiences. This is a debate which is being played out in many forums around the world at the moment.

I don't think it is possible to definitively resolve the debate as to whether God exists or not. And to believe that God doesn't exist is just as much an expression of belief as to believe that He does. Of course one can advance arguments in favour of which ever attitude you believe is best. But there is also something to be said for a kind of thoughtful or reflective agnosticism, or really being able to live with uncertainty. Not a 'don't know and don't care' type of view, but an awareness of the limits of knowledge, the scope of possibilities that may emerge in future, and the fact that no matter how much we learn, the world remains a mysterious place.

I think both scientific and spiritual outlooks can benefit from this view, nicely described in Mark Vernon's book After Atheism. In all the many debates I have had on the topic - and I acknowledge, I lean towards the spiritual-religious side of the spectrum - I often think the only thing I wish to establish is 'the space of possibility'. I don't want to come to a conclusion or to 'close the book'. I think it is important to adopt a viewpoint of humility in the face of all we don't know. And I see that as quite a pragmatic philosophy in this day and age.

0 Replies

@prothero,

Khethil;89811 wrote:

Secular spirituality, as shown in the opening post here, is just fine and an excellent encapsulation of - what appears to be - an emerging dominant mindset. Though I'm by no means a believer in any sense of the word, I like it - it seems to 'jive' and is rather innocuous, as compared to many traditional belief and spirituality systems.
prothero;89894 wrote:
What is the nature of the "emerging dominant mindset" as you see it? What philosophical or rational form does it take?

It's my own impression of a what I'd call a "trend". From what I've seen (I read a lot of history-related material) over time, this secular spirituality appears to be growing in predominance; moreso in the last 20-30 years. I've not come across anything that studies or quantifies the extent of its popularity - though that'd be very interesting. But from my corner of the world, it appears to be gathering steam.

On your second question, again, I can only come from what I've experienced or have had expressed in my presence. That being said, the iterations, I've seen, of secular spirituality seems to take a philosophical ground - on the spiritual level - that doesn't assert any specific deity - as if people were so very tired of the steriotypical god-types. As enunciated in the opening post, it appears to avoid away any particular definitions, instead embracing an overall appreciation for things spiritual, yet no thing in particular. Again, I'll have to refer you to the opening post - I think it delineates this concept very well.

I'll confess to some amount of personal difficulty in understanding here; because, well, it sounds as if it's simply a lifestyle and generalized-outlook, rather than anything spiritual per say (wherein those things Spiritual, have something to do with the spirit as some type of discernible entity). But my point, or my desire in this area, is not so much to try and accept or reject - I don't have any spiritual belief whatsoever - but to understand how people are thinking, what they believe in, strive for. The extent to which I can understand my fellow homo-sapiens improves how I can understand my own life and existence.

I'm not sure I hit the mark on your questions; nor if they made much sense. I hope so

Thanks

0 Replies

@salima,

salima;89821 wrote:

i keep saying the ego thinks it is your self but it is not-and in fact there is no self at all.

I can relate to this. I think that whether a person's sanity seems threatened upon realizing that me and not-me are interdependent ideas (am I even close to being on track?) depends on how strong their sense of identity is. Some of us have never been able to define ourselves as conservative or liberal, brainy or emotional, and so on, not for lacking the opposites, but for being always on both sides. For a person like that, since their identity is always riding on the opposites and never settling down in one spot, the idea that there is no self is their home: where the truth of them lies deep within. And insanity isn't really a significant threat. The ego knows how to protect itself. Insanity is a case where eros, the drive to live, is weak and so the ego is crippled and unable to organize itself. Where eros is strong, the ego can't be defeated.

salima;89821 wrote:

what i had in mind was more the idea that the loss of wholeness and unity we suffer here is the cause of all pain and sorrow. that is the spiritual aspect, the intangible unprovable and immeasurable sense of loss because it is not even formally recognized. we are in denial of our unity-that is my guess. i believe that once we know there is no other we will realize no more anger or pain or loneliness or frustration or meaninglessness

Have you ever heard the mystical formula: the one becomes the two, the two becomes the three, the three becomes the fourth, which is the one...
One is unity (like the human race), two is the opposites (like male versus female), three is the child of the opposites (male and female), and the fourth is the final expression of the one in actuality (the human race). This formula is tied to the idea of the tree of life. The top of the tree is unity: the unified realm of potential. The bottom of the tree is unity: the unified realm of actuality (the expression of the potential). The point is that the tree is a map that can be traveled in either direction, from the bottom up, or the top down. You may already be familiar with this kind of mysticism. It's not like it answers anything, it's just a map that's come down to us, showing us that we're not alone. I saw that you posted some poetry by Rumi. My favorite:
Deep in our hearts, the light of god is shining on a soundless sea with no shore. Smile

0 Replies

@prothero,

[QUOTE=prothero;89894]I am curious as to your view of the nature of this process.[/QUOTE]

prothero;89894 wrote:

I would say religion must give up supernaturalism. Science must acknowledge its inherent limitations in addressing only the material (res extensa) properties of reality. i.e. abandon exclusive claims to determining truth and existence. What would spirituality compatible with science look like for you?

You have partly answered the question you asked. As far as the process goes, it is, as i had implied before, that of acquiring/accumulating knowledge. Going into the nature of the process is simple; one needs only to study the natural history of man. That will reveal a lot of information.

The last question is quite relevent. How would spirituality be compatible with science? is the question, isn't it? Well, i had said that science has to reconcile with spirituality - was my comment., and not exactly asking for compatibilty between these two fields of knowledge. To explain what i meant, first we need to agree upon what spirituality means, and i suppose we fairly and generally know what exactly science means. For the english world, and lets add, the western world, spirituality is a fairly recent concept. So we need to be clear of what it means.

For some it means - supernaturalism, for others it means the immaterial things and concepts, for some it may mean subjective experiences or metaphysical notions, and yet for some it may seem like being possessed by spirits or what may be called as para-physical and para psychological experiences.

The notions of souls and spirits or for some the experinces of soul and spirits are what constitutes as spirituality. And since it is by its nature , extent and object of mental experiences, it cannot be quantified or recorded into data sheets. If science is only about data-sheets than science cannot find such evidences. But if science needs to be an encompassing endeavour of human intellect and experinece than it has to acknowledge, firstly its own limitation and accept that para-normal experiences , and mental experiences by way of meditation or other mental processes are all part of the spiritual experience or spiritualism that we often talk about. Theses kind of experiences are limited and restrictive. It is certainly not a common exprienec hence the difficulty. And perhaps therefore very few actually know what exactly it means.

Each one talks or forms an opinion on the basis of their experince or the lack of it.

[QUOTE=prothero;89894]In what way does science address values and aesthetics in your view? I would say science gives only a partial and incomplete accounting of "experience" and thus of reality and that this limitation is inherent. [/QUOTE]

prothero;89894 wrote:

You said it.

1 Reply

@Jackofalltrades phil,

Jackofalltrades;89991 wrote:

The notions of souls and spirits or for some the experinces of soul and spirits are what constitutes as spirituality. And since it is by its nature , extent and object of mental experiences, it cannot be quantified or recorded into data sheets. If science is only about data-sheets than science cannot find such evidences. But if science needs to be an encompassing endeavour of human intellect and experinece than it has to acknowledge, firstly its own limitation and accept that para-normal experiences , and mental experiences by way of meditation or other mental processes are all part of the spiritual experience or spiritualism that we often talk about. Theses kind of experiences are limited and restrictive. It is certainly not a common exprienec hence the difficulty. And perhaps therefore very few actually know what exactly it means.

I myself see it a little differently - for example, in connection with meditation. The day I created this thread there was an article in the daily paper about the ten 'ingredients for happiness', one of which was said to be meditation. As a practitioner, I can definitely attest to that. Meditation as a practise is something that has definitely entered the mainstream, and there is a lot of empirical support for its benefits. Now it may, or may not, be accompanied by 'beliefs' in the sense you refer to. For example, the vipassana meditation technique which is taught free in many places in the world by S. N. Goenka is quite secularist in its approach, even though based on Buddhist principles. It does not require you take on board any of the traditional-religious aspects of the Buddhist faith, or convert to Buddhism. Buddhism itself does not assert the existence of a supernatural creator. Certainly there are many supernatural elements in some forms of Buddhism, but this type of training does not require belief in any of them.

I suppose you could say, well is this actually a 'spiritual' practise? And the reply is 'it depends on what you mean.....'

But it is certainly a way of finding greater equanimity and gaining an understanding of the dynamics of the body and mind.

1 Reply

@jeeprs,

I suppose in the simplest approach

The notion that the universe is indifferent and behaves like a machine (mechanistic or deterministic) is not a spiritual view.

The notion that the universe has purpose (is rational and or moral) and has ultimate values and goals is a spiritual notion.

After that its a matter of details?

1 Reply

@jeeprs,

jeeprs;90044 wrote:

I myself see it a little differently - for example, in connection with meditation.

........ Meditation as a practise is something that has definitely entered the mainstream, and there is a lot of empirical support for its benefits. .........Now it may, or may not, be accompanied by 'beliefs' in the sense you refer to.
........... the vipassana meditation technique which is taught free in many places in the world by S. N. Goenka is quite secularist in its approach, even though based on Buddhist principles.
........... Certainly there are many supernatural elements in some forms of Buddhism, but this type of training does not require belief in any of them.

While i agree with much of what you say, i have to clarify certain points, since you have quoted me, while it seemed to me that you were addressing some one else. 1) Thats because, i never used this word 'belief'.
2) Of course, you see it differently, thats what i meant by saying people have their own meanings and relations to that concept or term.
3) I have been trained in Yoga and Vipassana. for me, meditation is a spiritual experience. This kind of experience is certainly secular, and perhaps universal.
4) As per records, meditational techniques were invented or discovered by Hindus or the Vedic sages, continues to be practised by Buddhists, Jainists, Confusious, Shintosim, and also by sufists. Now of course it has spread across the world with practioners found in all parts including the christian and islamic domains.
5) As for the supernatural belief, thats one kind of spiritualism, which is criticised by the scientific community. thats a big topic to discuss.

jeeprs;90044 wrote:

But it is certainly a way of finding greater equanimity and gaining an understanding of the dynamics of the body and mind.

I completely agree..... if the 'it' means spirituality. Very well said indeed. A very vital relationship.

0 Replies

@jeeprs,

sorry didn't mean to misconstrue your post.

0 Replies

@prothero,

prothero;90080 wrote:

The notion that the universe has purpose (is rational and or moral) and has ultimate values and goals is a spiritual notion.

If this is a statement you believe in, than you believe in spiritual experience, than whether it is notional or empirical how does it matter.

The Universe having a purpose, is more of an intellectual-theological argument, it is nothing spiritual. At the most, it can be described as a mystical feeling but having an intellectual basis to its existence.

ps: I do not have such feelings.

0 Replies

@jeeprs,

the interesting question is, if there is no purpose, then what is the anchor for any particular purpose you might have? Not grand, overarching purposes, but all the little ones, like setting personal goals, all the things you and I choose to do and pursue in this life, large and small. At what point do you draw the line between all the little purposes you have to pursue day to day, and where that purpose kind of runs out in a 'vast indifferent universe'? If there really is 'no purpose to it all', then what is the purpose to any of it? Where do your personal purposes get their sustenance, if not from a larger purpose? Or do you just kind of carry on regardless? Like Albert Camus and Sisyphus?

You might say this is a meaningless or academic question, but believe me it ain't. The question of purpose looms large for huge numbers of people. It surely must be factor in mental health, depression and so on.

If we decide to jettison traditional rationales for purpose, it may be indeed possible to manufacture some new ones, but it is going to take a serious effort. There are some humanist and existential philosophers who have started out on this - Erich Fromm a particularly good example - but basically just leaving it to choice, or chance, might not be a very robust solution.

1 Reply

@jeeprs,

jeeprs;90242 wrote:

the interesting question is, if there is no purpose, then what is the anchor for any particular purpose you might have? Not grand, overarching purposes, but all the little ones, like setting personal goals, all the things you and I choose to do and pursue in this life, large and small. At what point do you draw the line between all the little purposes you have to pursue day to day, and where that purpose kind of runs out in a 'vast indifferent universe'? If there really is 'no purpose to it all', then what is the purpose to any of it? Where do your personal purposes get their sustenance, if not from a larger purpose? Or do you just kind of carry on regardless? Like Albert Camus and Sisyphus?

You might say this is a meaningless or academic question, but believe me it ain't. The question of purpose looms large for huge numbers of people. It surely must be factor in mental health, depression and so on.

If we decide to jettison traditional rationales for purpose, it may be indeed possible to manufacture some new ones, but it is going to take a serious effort. There are some humanist and existential philosophers who have started out on this - Erich Fromm a particularly good example - but basically just leaving it to choice, or chance, might not be a very robust solution.

usually i agree with that fellow who asked 'why live?' and the answer is 'why not?' i forgot his name...starts with a 'D' i think?

you are right, and our miserable intellect keeps trying to stop us and say 'hey, why are you doing this? what's the point?' but the answer is very simple; because it is every organism's innate tendency to live-they cant help it. something has to go seriously wrong for anything to quit.

just got to learn to make that brain keep silent...

this is from Carl Rogers' On Personal Power:
"The actualizing tendency can of course be thwarted, but it cannot be destroyed without destroying the organism. I remember that in my boyhood the potato bin in which we stored our winter supply of potatoes was in the basement, several feet below a small basement window. The conditions were unfavorable, but the potatoes would begin to sprout-pale white sprouts, so unlike the healthy green shoots they sent up when planted in the soil in the spring. But these sad, spindly sprouts would grow two or three feet in length as they reached toward the distant light of the window. They were, in their bizarre, futile growth, a sort of desperate expression of the directional tendency I have been describing. They would never become a plant, never mature, never fulfill their real potentiality. But under the most adverse circumstances they were striving to become. Life would not give up, even if it could not flourish."

0 Replies

Secular Spirituality and Religious Naturalism

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know