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.
'Spirituality' like 'religion' is another of those very loose term.
As such we need to establish consensus of this term before we proceed to discuss or debate such a term.
If we do not agree on the term, the discussion can veer off to anything like, ghosts, magic, evil spirits, etc.
I would gravitate towards 'spirituality' by reference to the established generic human systems, like the Human Digest System, the Reproductive System, the Nervous System, the Learning System, etc.
Like the above generic human system, I propose there is a Generic Human Spiritual System [GHSS]. We can infer the existence of such a GHSS from the fact that it drives the majority of humans into religions, and various spiritual approaches, and generating very significant emotions, social, cultural, beliefs, with is good and evil impact that is so pervasive within humanity,
Such a GHSS is a system comprising a specific neural network in connection with various mental, neural and other physiological faculties emerged to deal directly with the inherent unavoidable existential dilemma. Such GHSS manifest in many forms of religions and spiritual practices where some can be 'malignant' while others are benign.
Now, there are other generic human systems that may generate similar experiences and feeling like those of the GHSS but if they are not directly associated with the existential dilemma I would not categorize them as spiritual, may be pseudo-spiritual. For example if one experience a 'spiritual like' orgasm, that would not be the GHSS but more related to the reproductive and sexual system.
If one feel the awe, eureka moments, various highs, that would be related to the Human Learning -Knowledge acquisition System.
I note from a survey, the term 'spiritual' when used in most cases refer to the GHSS as I had expounded above.
Since 'spirituality' is a loose term, any one could use it freely but in a discussion forum one need to very specific with its qualifications.
If there is a better term I can coin to label the GHSS-linked to existential dilemma, I would do so to avoid that very loose term, i.e. 'spirituality'.
Mordant. as the most reasonable and objective of my critics who use this accusation, I would appreciate an explanation of why you think it is appropriate to accuse people of "making things up?" That and the "dishonesty" nonsense of some of my other less reasonable adversaries border on "baiting or troll" behavior. I would never consider you as such, so I would appreciate an explanation of this repeated use of such annoying accusations.
Thanks, ~Mystic
It appears to be massively varied - it is a baggage term like Sport - which also means very many things to many people.
Some people think it has a relation to the divine. Others the complete opposite. It is a word with a lot of history and baggage. Somewhat plagiarised from a few sources on and off this forum - but I would simply define it myself as any exploration of the Human Condition above and beyond that you get from simply living your day to day life.
As that exploration has historically more often happened in religious contexts however - the word has become loaded with connotations that are mostly religious or heading in that direction. But there is no reason it should be so. It has nothing - nor does it need to have anything - to do with "spirits" and "souls". The whole rant about from arleigh about spirits and demons and possession and so forth is just nonsense tacked on to a word that has nothing to do with it.
To borrow from yet another user - Spirituality is nothing more than the construction of an ongoing narrative for your life that gives you a place in that life - and by which you guide yourself through it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pleroo
And then you have those people on this forum who say you shouldn't make a statement and say that it is your opinion, or your belief, or your best guess, because that is somehow dishonest. You can't win.
Not sure that is the issue really. I think for more people the issue is the kind of person who comes along throwing out all kinds of truth claims and statements about reality - who are then confronted on it and they retreat behind it being "oh just an opinion / my belief".
There is nothing wrong with starting opinions or beliefs. There is nothing wrong with making truth claims that you can back up with substance. The accusations of dishonesty are directed at those who jump between the two however. Making more and more fantastical claims - then when confronted they hide back in the shadow of "opinion" - wait for the fox to go away - and jump back out of their rabbit hole doing it all again. _THOSE_ people are dishonest.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
I would appreciate an explanation of why you think it is appropriate to accuse people of "making things up?"
As with any accusation - it is appropriate to make an accusation if the accusation is warranted. For example you might - and do - hide behind "opinion" when claiming that you believe that human consciousness can in some way survive the death of the brain. Fair enough - you have your opinion like many others.
But you do not stop there. You claim - entirely falsely - that science supports this belief or makes it credible. That is a straight out truth claim - not one you can run behind your shield of "opinion" to escape. Especially given the reality is entirely the opposite of what you claim. There is _nothing_ in science at this time that suggests the claim is true. _Everything_ we currently know about human consciousness and the brain - although limited and incomplete - points in _exactly_ the opposite direction of your claims.
And therefore that is the solid grounding behind any accusation of making things up. Because - quite simply - you are.
What I mean is that if someone has a "spiritual" experience, I can test it for myself if I so desire. Since spirituality is a pretty highly individual and subjective thing, my experience (or interpretation) may be the same and/or different than theirs, at which point I can decide for myself if it is something I want to take on board or not. Regardless, I often find discussions about spirituality interesting and meaningful to me.
We are on the same page.
It is possible for a person to discuss spirituality with someone else and for the person they discuss it with to find it interesting. Heck, even I sometimes find it interesting. What I don't find it is credible. What is not possible is for a spiritual experience to be conveyed to another person. "God has no grandchildren", as the saying goes. You are right, only by attempting to indulge for oneself, can one experience something that might or might not go over the same as it did for someone else.
And then it is still an experience, not a discrete event in shared reality that can be studied, compared, or examined in any way by anyone else.
And that is precisely my issue with spiritual experiences. They don't happen in shared reality. That doesn't make them invalid ... my subjective experience of 'blue' or the weird dream I had last night don't happen in shared reality either but they are part of my makeup nevertheless. It's just that I don't make extraordinary claims about my inner experiences that are implied to be normative for anyone else.
It is possible for a person to discuss spirituality with someone else and for the person they discuss it with to find it interesting. Heck, even I sometimes find it interesting. What I don't find it is credible. What is not possible is for a spiritual experience to be conveyed to another person. "God has no grandchildren", as the saying goes. You are right, only by attempting to indulge for oneself, can one experience something that might or might not go over the same as it did for someone else.
And then it is still an experience, not a discrete event in shared reality that can be studied, compared, or examined in any way by anyone else.
And that is precisely my issue with spiritual experiences. They don't happen in shared reality. That doesn't make them invalid ... my subjective experience of 'blue' or the weird dream I had last night don't happen in shared reality either but they are part of my makeup nevertheless. It's just that I don't make extraordinary claims about my inner experiences that are implied to be normative for anyone else.
Okay, fair enough. For myself, I don't just find it interesting to hear about the experiences of others, I also can find it to be meaningful and at least potentially credible. And, if I happen to stumble across people who have had similar experiences, I really appreciate hearing their interpretation and perspective of that experience, whether it is the same as mine or not.
To me it just comes down to making stuff up to try to explain one's existential dilemmas.
Mordant. as the most reasonable and objective of my critics who use this accusation, I would appreciate an explanation of why you think it is appropriate to accuse people of "making things up?" That and the "dishonesty" nonsense of some of my other less reasonable adversaries border on "baiting or troll" behavior. I would never consider you as such, so I would appreciate an explanation of this repeated use of such annoying accusations.
Thanks, ~Mystic
In most cases it isn't a matter of people deliberately making things up out of whole cloth. It is in practice more about adopting prefabricated constructs created by others, for yourself. This has the added advantage that its made-up nature can be obfuscated behind centuries of tradition and lots of popularity and holy books and so on, not to mention, common human perceptual tendencies.
When I say, not that this is made up but that, if you'll read closely I regard it as made up, I say that to indicate that it has no evidentiary standing with me personally, nor, I suspect with most empiricists. It is nothing personal, nor should it be taken personally -- though inevitably it WILL be taken personally by some. Indeed it seems you take it personally to an extent because you suggest that it is an "accusation" rather than simply on observation, or a statement of fact by me rather than a statement of my belief / opinion.
The truth is I have no way of knowing directly what is going on in between someone else's ears. As I stated in another post last night, privately held beliefs are not for me to judge or second guess or even care about, but as soon as they are exposed for public scrutiny and consideration they do not deserve my automatic credence, either. And when they effect society or effect me directly then my tolerance or acceptance or deference to such beliefs (or, doubly, if they are presented as knowledge claims -- as they often are) is not obligatory.
Beliefs, as they say, are like rectal orifices. Everyone has one, but no one's is better than the next. The thing about my beliefs is that I don't claim any special unction for them, whereas often, others do.
As an aside, this isn't unique to religion or theism. Secular beliefs, such as politics or opinions about music, can be held with nearly as much ego investment and otherizing of anyone who doesn't share them. They just lack the faux gravitas of claiming that the creator and sustainer of the universe approves of them.
In most cases it isn't a matter of people deliberately making things up out of whole cloth. It is in practice more about adopting prefabricated constructs created by others, for yourself. This has the added advantage that its made-up nature can be obfuscated behind centuries of tradition and lots of popularity and holy books and so on, not to mention, common human perceptual tendencies.
When I say, not that this is made up but that, if you'll read closely I regard it as made up, I say that to indicate that it has no evidentiary standing with me personally, nor, I suspect with most empiricists. It is nothing personal, nor should it be taken personally -- though inevitably it WILL be taken personally by some. Indeed it seems you take it personally to an extent because you suggest that it is an "accusation" rather than simply on observation, or a statement of fact by me rather than a statement of my belief / opinion.
The truth is I have no way of knowing directly what is going on in between someone else's ears. As I stated in another post last night, privately held beliefs are not for me to judge or second guess or even care about, but as soon as they are exposed for public scrutiny and consideration they do not deserve my automatic credence, either. And when they effect society or effect me directly then my tolerance or acceptance or deference to such beliefs (or, doubly, if they are presented as knowledge claims -- as they often are) is not obligatory.
Beliefs, as they say, are like rectal orifices. Everyone has one, but no one's is better than the next. The thing about my beliefs is that I don't claim any special unction for them, whereas often, others do.
As an aside, this isn't unique to religion or theism. Secular beliefs, such as politics or opinions about music, can be held with nearly as much ego investment and otherizing of anyone who doesn't share them. They just lack the faux gravitas of claiming that the creator and sustainer of the universe approves of them.
I'd like to ask you (I've asked others, and gotten no response) ... what about Mystic's beliefs as he has presented them on this forum, could negatively effect society or you directly? The reason I ask is because some posters have explained that that is why they are so concerned about what Mystic posts, but they have yet to explain how Mystic's beliefs could negatively impact them.
I'd like to ask you (I've asked others, and gotten no response) ... what about Mystic's beliefs as he has presented them on this forum, could negatively effect society or you directly? The reason I ask is because some posters have explained that that is why they are so concerned about what Mystic posts, but they have yet to explain how Mystic's beliefs could negatively impact them.
There are a lot of gullible people in this world who will accept extraordinary claims without much evidence. And humans have learned how to take advantage of this fact in order to gain followers. With a legion of followers comes money and political power. A society full of shysters preying on the gullible and/or emotionally vulnerable is not healthy. Now it is probably true that a large number of religious leaders really believe in the stuff they are peddling (due to being bamboozled themselves or by having profound experiences that they do not understand, etc.). But that's no less harmful.
There are a lot of gullible people in this world who will accept extraordinary claims without much evidence. And humans have learned how to take advantage of this fact in order to gain followers. With a legion of followers comes money and political power. A society full of shysters preying on the gullible and/or emotionally vulnerable is not healthy. Now it is probably true that a large number of religious leaders really believe in the stuff they are peddling (due to being bamboozled themselves or by having profound experiences that they do not understand, etc.). But that's no less harmful.
The questions was about Mystic's beliefs: how do they threaten you or society?
He has said*, as I recall, that he believes certain things to be true based on his experiences, his knowledge of various fields of science, his study of history, etc. Some of those things, he believes, may have the potential to be investigated more thoroughly at some point as science advances. How is that threatening to you?
He has also said that he believes the only thing God is concerned with is, essentially, how we treat each other, not our beliefs about God (and not about anyone agreeing with Mystic's beliefs about God). How is that a threat?
He has said that any religion which encourages it's followers to foist "God's will" onto other people, is problematic. How is that a threat?
I'd like to ask you (I've asked others, and gotten no response) ... what about Mystic's beliefs as he has presented them on this forum, could negatively effect society or you directly? The reason I ask is because some posters have explained that that is why they are so concerned about what Mystic posts, but they have yet to explain how Mystic's beliefs could negatively impact them.
I don't see his beliefs as harmful. I don't give credence to them, and to the extent Mystic doesn't insist that I SHOULD give them credence or that I should be able and/or willing to but cannot because I am deficient and/or defective and/or obstinate, all is right with the world. He has been known to stomp his feet and insist his ideas must be given credence, and he has been known to pull the "I'm more educated / erudite than you" card at times. I assume on bad days.
But other than such impertinence and disrespect, are his ideas harmful? I would argue, not that consequential at all, much less harmfully so. And when you compare them to theistic / religious notions that are more prevalent in the world -- they are comparatively benign and decidedly non-fascistic. In fact Mystic and I actually see eye to eye on a number of things. In fact for practical intents and purposes I would say that both Mystic and I are harmless cuddly (if occasionally somewhat crusty) teddy bears, just for different reasons and with different rationalizations.
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.
And, if I happen to stumble across people who have had similar experiences, I really appreciate hearing their interpretation and perspective of that experience, whether it is the same as mine or not.
