Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Super! Where we disagree (and I don't think we need to) is that I see nothing wrong with creating stories, as long as you treat them as stories. There is nothing wrong with celebrating them as heritage (to use a word used quite a lot over the last couple of weeks), and more importantly, stories serve very well to demonstrate and contextualize messages.* What is spiritually immature is claiming that the stories lend their message any credence: The message has to have credence on its own merits, and if it is a moral message then that means that its credence must be grounded in basic principles that your audience has ratified. If you cannot prove your point built on the framework in place with the people who you wish to affect, then you aren't making a point. You're just trying to bully people. Again: That's spiritual immaturity.
The message must indeed have credence on its own merits. Which is why we maintain that human mores, codes of conduct and social standards are what counts and we judge the 'message' of the Bible and indeed all other written offerings by that relatively loose bunch of standards. That is why I use quotes from Peanuts, Star -Trek and LOR as much as the Bible. But nothing is accepted by me a tru or even valuable, just because it is in any of those books, strips or scripts.
Quote:
____
* Carried forward to its logical consequence, this extends to legitimizing (reason-based) organized religion, itself. The important aspect of this is demonstrated by a scenario: I could communicate the basics of set theory with a bunch of formulas, or I could communicate the basics of set theory with some word problems. Human beings understand the concept more readily using the latter approach, and develop a more intrinsic affinity for that understanding using the latter approach, as compared to the former. But that's a topic for another thread I suppose.
That sounds like the De Botton proposal. Using the benefits and beneficial aspects of religion without having to buy into any of the untenable faith -claims.
I would simplify it further and just say that maturity is accepting our limitations as humans with finite conceptual and sensory apparatuses.
I'm not sure how a statement that mentions "conceptual apparatuses" is simpler. Shorter, perhaps, but not simpler. Regardless, the key is that those conceptual apparatuses enable humans to make meaning. That's a critical aspect that could get lost in the more complex yet compact descriptions you provided.
I'm not sure how a statement that mentions "conceptual apparatuses" is simpler. Shorter, perhaps, but not simpler. Regardless, the key is that those conceptual apparatuses enable humans to make meaning. That's a critical aspect that could get lost in the more complex yet compact descriptions you provided.
All I really did was remove the word "spiritual" / "spirituality". It's a subjective term that doesn't illuminate anything IMO.
Nothing I said addresses or nullifies the concept that people can and do make their own meaning. I am just not willing to mystify the process.
Our human limitations guarantee that we will never know everything there is to know, much less understand everything we DO know. Epistemological humility demands that we accept uncertainty as part of life, and respond appropriately to it.
All I really did was remove the word "spiritual" / "spirituality".
We'll have to agree to disagree. Your restatement lots most of the meaning in the comment I made.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mordant
Nothing I said addresses or nullifies the concept that people can and do make their own meaning. I am just not willing to mystify the process.
There isn't anything necessarily mystifying about meaning-making, and that aspect of my statement makes the difference between what humans can do and what other mammals can do.
There isn't anything necessarily mystifying about meaning-making, and that aspect of my statement makes the difference between what humans can do and what other mammals can do.
I think Mordant's point, and one I agree with, was that meaning-making is not necessarily synonymous with "spiritual". I like your term "meaning-making" much more, as it avoids a lot of the baggage that spiritual connotes, like supernatural, mystical, transcendent and the like. If those concepts are introduced, I find it better do do so directly instead of through loaded language.
As far as the difference between humans and other animals, the more I learn about animal cognition, language, and such, the more I think the difference is one of degree not of kind...
Or maybe it makes his wife happy and he wants his wife to be happy. We go out to eat more often than I would like because it makes my wife happy. We have gone to some religious services because she wanted to see what they were like so I went along.
Or maybe it makes his wife happy and he wants his wife to be happy. We go out to eat more often than I would like because it makes my wife happy. We have gone to some religious services because she wanted to see what they were like so I went along.
Obviously, if it doesn't really bother him, it's fine. Maybe he's more of an agnostic. But, if he's a sure atheist, it's hypocrital. He should stand up for what he believes.
Obviously, if it doesn't really bother him, it's fine. Maybe he's more of an agnostic. But, if he's a sure atheist, it's hypocrital. He should stand up for what he believes.
Isn't hypocrisy OK with Atheists? Each man sets his own rules as there is no God. Therefore hypocrisy is not wrong? He is standing for what he believes ... standing for ... nothing.
There isn't anything necessarily mystifying about meaning-making, and that aspect of my statement makes the difference between what humans can do and what other mammals can do.
Then talk about meaning-making rather than spirituality. And don't be so sure that no other animals make meaning at all. Particularly other primates, orcas, and elephants from what I've heard. It's different in degree / amplitude and no one does it like we humans (that we know of). But even if it were totally unique to us it would not be an excuse to invent soul / spirit to explain it.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Shorter, perhaps, but not simpler. Regardless, the key is that those conceptual apparatuses enable humans to make meaning. That's a critical aspect that could get lost in the more complex yet compact descriptions you provided.
