Don't tell me there's no proof for evolution

IFeelFree: Sometimes an intellectual framework is useful in order to make sense of spiritual experiences, but it is not a matter of faith or dogma.

I'm not sure what you mean by "intellectual framework is useful...to make sense of spiritual experiences." Just how does one determine "intellectual framework" in anything defined as "spiritual?" Can you give us some examples of what you mean? Who determines the "intellectual" part of the experience?

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

IFeelFree: Sometimes an intellectual framework is useful in order to make sense of spiritual experiences, but it is not a matter of faith or dogma.

I'm not sure what you mean by "intellectual framework is useful...to make sense of spiritual experiences." Just how does one determine "intellectual framework" in anything defined as "spiritual?" Can you give us some examples of what you mean? Who determines the "intellectual" part of the experience?

By "intellectual framework" I mean an over-arching theory that helps explain the meaning and significance of spiritual experience. There is the experience, and then there is the intellectual understanding. For example, if I experience stillness, deep peace, bliss, and energy during meditation, what does it mean? What is the origin of this experience? Is it of any value to me, or just a momentary joy? The intellectual understanding is obtained by reading relevant spiritual texts and records of similar experiences, sharing/discussing the experience with other practitioners, reflection and consideration, intuition and, if possible, consulting a trusted spiritual teacher. In the example of the meditation experience, my interpretation is that I am allowing mental activity to relax so that I become aware of the field of pure consciousness within. This pure consciousness is who I really am, independent of thoughts, perceptions, emotions, memories, etc. It is a glimpse of the Self written about in Eastern mysticism. The lasting value of this experience is that, over time, it has begun to "spill over" into my ordinary waking consciousness, so that I experience greater peace, acceptance, ease, and joy in my daily activity.

0 Replies

Did anyone take in the special NYT Science section this past Tuesday? It was a series of articles on evo-devo as seen by separate (and often conflictiing ) POVs from separate science journalists.

0 Replies

farmerman wrote:

Did anyone take in the special NYT Science section this past Tuesday? It was a series of articles on evo-devo as seen by separate (and often conflictiing ) POVs from separate science journalists.

BBB started a thread with evo-devo here

0 Replies

IFeelFree: What is the origin of this experience?

It has to do with endorphins in the brain. It's a biological experience; nothing more, nothing less. That you would tag it "spiritual," is stretching the reality. Anyone can force those "spiritual" feeling by using the right kind of drug or food.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

IFeelFree: What is the origin of this experience?

It has to do with endorphins in the brain. It's a biological experience; nothing more, nothing less. That you would tag it "spiritual," is stretching the reality. Anyone can force those "spiritual" feeling by using the right kind of drug or food.

That there are physiological correlates to subjective experiences supports the notion that those experience are real. To say that a spiritual experience is a "biological experience" is like saying that selfless love, or the discovery of relativity theory, or writing a symphony, are just "biological experiences". It doesn't do justice to the experience. We are not machines. There is a depth to our experience that is not captured in a reductionist view.

I wouldn't disagree that some type of spiritual experience might be induced by a drug. That shows that there is a link between our physical body and our state of consciousness. Whether the drug-induced experience results in an expansion of consciousness, or simply derangement, depends on many factors. In general, psychotropic drugs tend to have negative effects on the body and so I don't recommend them.

0 Replies

IFeelFree wrote:

That there are physiological correlates to subjective experiences supports the notion that those experience are real. To say that a spiritual experience is a "biological experience" is like saying that selfless love, or the discovery of relativity theory, or writing a symphony, are just "biological experiences". It doesn't do justice to the experience. We are not machines. There is a depth to our experience that is not captured in a reductionist view.

This is a series of statements from authority for which no one here has any reason to assume you actually possess such authority. When you claim that such statements don't do justice to the experiences, you are simply begging the question of whether or not your self-congratulatory descriptions of your personal "spiritual" experiences have any basis in reality.

And, of course, you are once again ignoring the topic of the thread, because you see every thread you enter as an opportunity to talk about yourself. Once again, tediously, rather than having eliminated your ego to have achieved a "higher consciousness," you have elevated your own ego the the status of your god.

0 Replies

The eye is a good topic for the theory of evolution. Eyes must "survive" in different enviornments for it to be useful for survival. A fish (or any animal that lives underwater), a birds (owls and bats must be able to see at night), other land and water animals such as penguins and polar bears (must live in freezing climates), insects, and humans (who survive in most climates on earth - extreme hot or extreme cold).

Since the land mass of earth was once concentrated, most living species on land must have had closer biology of the eyes. That changed when the land mass broke up into what we see today.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

IFeelFree wrote:
That there are physiological correlates to subjective experiences supports the notion that those experience are real. To say that a spiritual experience is a "biological experience" is like saying that selfless love, or the discovery of relativity theory, or writing a symphony, are just "biological experiences". It doesn't do justice to the experience. We are not machines. There is a depth to our experience that is not captured in a reductionist view.

This is a series of statements from authority for which no one here has any reason to assume you actually possess such authority. When you claim that such statements don't do justice to the experiences, you are simply begging the question of whether or not your self-congratulatory descriptions of your personal "spiritual" experiences have any basis in reality.

I don't claim any particular authority. I say what seems self-evident to me, and occasionally report my experiences as I understand them. If they are my experiences, they are as real as any other subjective experience.

Quote:

And, of course, you are once again ignoring the topic of the thread, because you see every thread you enter as an opportunity to talk about yourself. Once again, tediously, rather than having eliminated your ego to have achieved a "higher consciousness," you have elevated your own ego the the status of your god.

I will try to respond to questions or criticisms directed at me, even if they are not "on topic". Threads frequently stray from the original topic, but that is not necessarily a bad thing. I also try not to attack people personally. I feel that it is not constructive.

0 Replies

IFeelFree: To say that a spiritual experience is a "biological experience" is like saying that selfless love, or the discovery of relativity theory, or writing a symphony, are just "biological experiences".

"Selfless love, the discovery of relativity theory, or writing a symphony" are quite different than "spiritual experience."

I'll just challenge you by asking why you think they are the same?

0 Replies

IFeelFree wrote:

I don't claim any particular authority. I say what seems self-evident to me, and occasionally report my experiences as I understand them. If they are my experiences, they are as real as any other subjective experience.

Given that the topic of the thread is "Don't tell me there's no proof for evolution," your subjective experiences, upon which you congratulate yourself, are not at all germane. There is, furthermore, no reason to assume absent any other form of confirmation, that how you report your experience constitutes reality.

Quote:

I will try to respond to questions or criticisms directed at me, even if they are not "on topic". Threads frequently stray from the original topic, but that is not necessarily a bad thing. I also try not to attack people personally. I feel that it is not constructive.

This thread has strayed from the topic, as does just about every thread you enter, precisely because you'd rather discuss the excellence of your spiritual experience rather than the titular topic--which was under constant discussion until you showed up. I feel that it is not constructive.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

IFeelFree: To say that a spiritual experience is a "biological experience" is like saying that selfless love, or the discovery of relativity theory, or writing a symphony, are just "biological experiences".

"Selfless love, the discovery of relativity theory, or writing a symphony" are quite different than "spiritual experience."

I'll just challenge you by asking why you think they are the same?

You're right. There is a difference. True spiritual experiences are probably more important to the individual that has them than the other experiences I mentioned. A profound spiritual experience can transform a person completely. It can turn his life around. It can save him from considerable suffering, here in this life. The other experiences I mentioned may be of greater significance to the others, but not necessarily to the individual who has them.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

IFeelFree wrote:

...This thread has strayed from the topic, as does just about every thread you enter, precisely because you'd rather discuss the excellence of your spiritual experience rather than the titular topic--which was under constant discussion until you showed up. I feel that it is not constructive.

The particular direction that this thread has taken started when cicerone imposter compared science and spirituality. I don't think it is entirely irrelevant, especially on a "Spirituality and Religion" forum.

0 Replies

I am interested in what IFeelFree has to say about his "spiritual experiences." Most people with religious tendencies seem to depend a great deal of their belief based on these experiences, and I wanted to delve into IFF's beliefs and experiences.

I notice many, including Jews, who "pray" seem to sway rather than standing still during their prayers. I think this has something to do with that spiritual experience. IFF's experience seems unique in that he claims it's not based on religion. Interesting to learn another side about this common experience called "spiritual experience."

0 Replies

IFeelFree wrote:

Setanta wrote:
...This thread has strayed from the topic, as does just about every thread you enter, precisely because you'd rather discuss the excellence of your spiritual experience rather than the titular topic--which was under constant discussion until you showed up. I feel that it is not constructive.

The particular direction that this thread has taken started when cicerone imposter compared science and spirituality. I don't think it is entirely irrelevant, especially on a "Spirituality and Religion" forum.

That's a lie. You appear in this thread on page 115, when Wilso commented that: Belief in god is not provable, testable, or rational. It's an escape clause for the weak of mind, and a crutch for the fearful. He made not the least mention of "spirituality." You have been the one who has pushed his way into the discussion in the attempt to take it over, and to make the topic of this thread into a discussion of you and the alleged excellence of your spiritual understanding.

Your first post in this thread, Post #2726612, can be read by clicking here.

Before you showed up to hijack the thread--immediately before that event, we had been discussing what constitutes a species, and the subtleties of the Potassium/Argon dating method for geological samples. Since you showed up to hijack the thread, you have succeeded in making your ego the topic.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

I am interested in what IFeelFree has to say about his "spiritual experiences."

Then why don't you two go off in a corner and start your own thread. This was an interesting discussion until that joker showed up.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

...This thread has strayed from the topic, as does just about every thread you enter, precisely because you'd rather discuss the excellence of your spiritual experience rather than the titular topic--which was under constant discussion until you showed up. I feel that it is not constructive.

The particular direction that this thread has taken started when cicerone imposter compared science and spirituality. I don't think it is entirely irrelevant, especially on a "Spirituality and Religion" forum.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

Before you showed up to hijack the thread--immediately before that event, we had been discussing what constitutes a species, and the subtleties of the Potassium/Argon dating method for geological samples. Since you showed up to hijack the thread, you have succeeded in making your ego the topic.

Nothing is preventing you from continuing that conversation. I don't see why we can't have more than one discussion taking place at once.

0 Replies

IFeelFree wrote:

The particular direction that this thread has taken started when cicerone imposter compared science and spirituality. I don't think it is entirely irrelevant, especially on a "Spirituality and Religion" forum.

Apparently, you also lack reading comprehension skills. I've already addressed this, when i responded:

Setanta wrote:

That's a lie. You appear in this thread on page 115, when Wilso commented that: Belief in god is not provable, testable, or rational. It's an escape clause for the weak of mind, and a crutch for the fearful. He made not the least mention of "spirituality." You have been the one who has pushed his way into the discussion in the attempt to take it over, and to make the topic of this thread into a discussion of you and the alleged excellence of your spiritual understanding.

Your first post in this thread, Post #2726612, can be read by clicking here.

Before you showed up to hijack the thread--immediately before that event, we had been discussing what constitutes a species, and the subtleties of the Potassium/Argon dating method for geological samples. Since you showed up to hijack the thread, you have succeeded in making your ego the topic.

You've killed yet another thread with your overweening ego. I'm outta here.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

I am interested in what IFeelFree has to say about his "spiritual experiences." Most people with religious tendencies seem to depend a great deal of their belief based on these experiences, and I wanted to delve into IFF's beliefs and experiences.

I notice many, including Jews, who "pray" seem to sway rather than standing still during their prayers. I think this has something to do with that spiritual experience. IFF's experience seems unique in that he claims it's not based on religion. Interesting to learn another side about this common experience called "spiritual experience."

I talk about my spiritual experiences on the "everything else does..." thread, especially here.

0 Replies

Don't tell me there's no proof for evolution

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know