May 19th, 2011, 08:23 PM
Religions have far to many rules, codes, and beliefs. From contradictions, science, outdatedness, and illogicalness in these rules, codes and beliefs all the bad things in religion spring. However, no belief/code/doctrine is going to be perfect for all time if it is too specific. So would the perfect religion preserve all that is beautiful about religion- faith, community, charity, peace etc. without all the intricate rules?
Sounds like buddhism.
I like the idea of harmony and community without the dogmatic doctrines.
Science, please.
religion should be about the spiritual betterment of oneself.
something science does a lot better than religion, and on a much larger scale.
"religion should be about the spiritual betterment of oneself"
sounds like a rule to me.
Spiritual and science do not seem to have commonality.
I agree with prasit. How does science give you spirituality?religion should be about the spiritual betterment of oneself.
something science does a lot better than religion, and on a much larger scale.
Would you have us become worshipers of science?
Kind of, but less bound by official beliefs that everyone has to follow.Sounds like buddhism.
Can anyone here define spirituality for me in a way which doesn't rely on vague, ill-defined words, and which doesn't boil down to you saying something self-referential like, "well, you know... I mean 'spiritual' stuff?"
Here goes.Originally Posted by inow
Spirituality is the cognitive manifestation of certain virtues of emotion; empathy, love, compassion into a form that progresses the social surroundings towards collective benevolence. As a whole, individuals that share this mindset create a better community where all involved in this thought process benefit from each others 'kindness'. An idealistc social setting in where more primitive emotions driven from the reptilian brain; selfishness, anger and impatience, are void. As a result it then appears to others involved that they have 'ascended' physical connection to archaeic ways of thought and reached a level of collective benevolence separate from what nature originally created, thus giving the illusion of 'sprituality' or that they have reached 'a higher state of consiousness'.
:?
I truly appreciate the effort you made, but the vagaries unfortunately remain. "Ascension of physical connection to archaeic ways of thought reaching a level of collective benevolence?" Sorry, I don't feel any better informed on WTH spirituality is supposed to mean than I did before, but again appreciate the attempt you put forth.
I read it as "good values trying to make everyone good and society in general good, a place where bad values do not exist. This embrace of good values makes them appear to be spiritual". Don't know if that helps or hurts, or if it is even what Quantime meant. That was my interpretation then.
I think spirituality is a perception, or a sum of the parts of Quantime's definition (i.e. good values)
It's a hard idea to put into words, or a definition. Even dictionary.com doesn't have a good definition. ''
What's a bad value? If it's a value, wouldn't that mean somebody thinks it is good?
Please keep in mind that I have entirely made up the following.
Spirituality; The theory of an incorporeal component of human consciousness.
Supernatural spirituality; Ghost's, God's, and other such woo as the explanation for the incorporeal component of human consciousness.
Weak scientific spirituality; Consideration of the data set manipulated by biological neurophysiology as the incorporeal component of human consciousness.
Strong scientific spirituality; The hypothesis of a structuralized exotic matter that is subtly interactive with normal matter, as the incorporeal component of human consciousness.
I guess that was a bad word to use. "Bad values" are greed, selfishness, all the "primitive emotions driven from the reptilian brain.What's a bad value? If it's a value, wouldn't that mean somebody thinks it is good?
Basically an explanation of the incorporeal part of the human consciousness?Spirituality; The theory of an incorporeal component of human consciousness.
Supernatural spirituality; Ghost's, God's, and other such woo as the explanation for the incorporeal component of human consciousness.
Weak scientific spirituality; Consideration of the data set manipulated by biological neurophysiology as the incorporeal component of human consciousness.
Strong scientific spirituality; The hypothesis of a structuralized exotic matter that is subtly interactive with normal matter, as the incorporeal component of human consciousness.
"Incorporeal" is a muddy word. Certainly spirituality is real, it being akin to an emotional perception of being part of something bigger that without a doubt quite corporal and real as any other emotion from our brains.incorporeal component of human consciousness.
The discussion reminds of a recent study that found 20% of atheistic scientist consider themselves spiritual.
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gn...tual-atheists/
From the Wiktionary; http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/incorporeal.
Incorporeal; Having no material form or physical substance.
Hmmm, yep, I said incorporeal on purpose. Or perhaps you know a better word for, without material form or physical substance?
But this does not mean they are mutually exclusive, they can run parallel without crossing onto the others domain. Given a definition of spirituality bereft of faith, they may even have some commonality. As for actually defining it... the word seems to mean so many things to so many people it has little value in the sense words should: the word does not seem to refer to a common socially experienced phenomenon. When attempts to define are made an appeal to the lowest common denominator render the term useless, especially in any scientific/philosophical discussion.
What about defining spirituality in a way to incorporate your concept of the axiom of morality which leads to scientific morality? This leads me to other thoughts, but i'll address them on the 'organised religion' thread as it follows from that discussion.
I saw some parallels there, too, but felt that addition of the term "spirituality" did not add any clear utility or benefit over other terms already in use, as we already have descriptors like "morality" and "well-being" which are much more clear, definable, and consistent... all while covering these topics much more sensibly.What about defining spirituality in a way to incorporate your concept of the axiom of morality which leads to scientific morality? This leads me to other thoughts, but i'll address them on the 'organised religion' thread as it follows from that discussion.
Another challenge I have is when I consider how broadly "spiritual" is used. It seems to cover everything from ghosts, people eating some kind of delicious food, having a dream that someone is floating above your bed, burning incense, going into a sauna or sweat lodge, dowsing for water, wearing magnetic bracelets, praying, walking up a mountain, listening to chants or music, discussing ESP, telekinesis, and countless other types of paranormal woo and flim flam which is absolutely better explained using more precise terms already available to us and at our disposal (or, more commonly, which has no evidence whatsoever in its favor).
It's a catch-all phrase to describe psychological events about which people seem to lack the education, experience, or knowledge to describe otherwise with more rigorous terms or phrases. I stand firm in my position that nobody seems able to define "spiritual" in a useful way, so I pretty much discard it for being a flypaper for the ridiculous and nonsensical.
And I don't think it fits AT ALL. It's made up of brain cells and the connections between them. I don't think we'd describe fear or being blissful as "incorporeal."
Sorry wrong spiritual has no brains cells at all. it simply a state of mind.
And I don't think it fits AT ALL. It's made up of brain cells and the connections between them.It doesn't matter how we describe it, but it is incorporeal.
Do you actually know what spiritual and incorporeal mean.
From dictionary.com
Spiritual: of, pertaining to, or consisting of spirit; incorporeal.
Incorporeal: not corporeal or material; insubstantial.
Does that help.
Do you now see how, it can't consist of any brain cells.
Well, if you have an alternate definition for spirituality, then please present it.
And I don't think it fits AT ALL. It's made up of brain cells and the connections between them. I don't think we'd describe fear or being blissful as "incorporeal."
Or is this it;
I freely admitted that I had made up my definition for spirituality, it is possible that the definition I provided is erroneous, but my contextual use of the word incorporeal is correct.
There is no such thing as states of mind that aren't made up of brain activity. They are one and the same.
--
Think I already did.I freely admitted that I had made up my definition for spirituality, it is possible that the definition I provided is erroneous, but my contextual use of the word incorporeal is correct.Certainly spirituality is real, it being akin to an emotional perception of being part of something bigger
I think spirituality is what we call the emotional state of perceiving with awe that we are part of a much larger thing. I think it's just part of how our brains evolved to recognized patterns. To our ancestors and some scientist, it's possibly profoundly useful to identify larger connections between seemingly different events--that wholesome approach both useful and the emotional connection motivating us to explore more to deepen understanding in the phenomena. A spiritual ancient coastal dweller or modern scientist tap into the spirituality to recognize the larger pattern of an approaching hurricane and evacuate their family saving their lives. (I've personally done something similar).
The problem comes, when our amazing brains incorrectly identify false patterns and either attribute them to things that don't really exist and waste energy. A "Born Again" which forfeits family and fun because they think they've found Christ out of spiritual feeling in superstition.
If it simplifies that language we could probably define the Spiritual as those large things we think we recognize such as god for which there's no real evidence. Having spirituality though doesn't mean you believe in JUST spiritual things--it can simply represent the emotional state of strong awe, connection and wholesome understanding we feel when thinking about natural as well as other phenomena.
I honestly think that unless secular society develops a means to appeal to our intrinsic spirituality, human will always be a slave to superstition.
But thats not what you said. (strawman) You said...There is no such thing as states of mind that aren't made up of brain activity. They are one and the same.Yes a state of mind is a temporary psychological state. which is incorporeal in nature. You can only say that the incorporeal nature of these things is caused but your brains cells, and other stimili, but you can not say they are made up of the brains cells. Sorry you've failed.
And you are completely missing the second part of my definition "the connections between them." That would include the physical things (axons, glia etc) as well as the electrical signals running back and forth which are transitory yet corporal because they are either ions or electrons. Your "state of mind," can only be those things, because that is all that thought can be made up of--or at least all we have credible evidence for. All we are, including our internal perceptions of what other parts of the brain are experiencing, the thing we call consciousness, what you call "our mind" is an expression of the corporal brain-the same as all our thoughts. What else do you think it is?But thats not what you said. (strawman) You said...There is no such thing as states of mind that aren't made up of brain activity. They are one and the same.Yes a state of mind is a temporary psychological state. which is incorporeal in nature. You can only say that the incorporeal nature of these things is caused but your brains cells, and other stimili, but you can not say they are made up of the brains cells. Sorry you've failed.
I'll fully admit that as some scale such as the point of talking about electrical potentials between brain cells, the idea of "corporal" or "incorporal" becomes a rather silly notion--they are archaic terms from an age when all we knew was macro-scale.
There's a ghost in the machine. Or at least that's what i think Pavlos and GiantEvil mean to imply?
Really I was just trying to provide a concise definition for spirituality. As far as the use of the word goes, I am inclined to inow's opinion that the word is irrevocably corrupted with vagueness.
I rather like the idea of a ghost in the machine, but I realize the importance of keeping an open mind and therefore will classify it as an open question.
If such a thing as the ghost in the machine exist's, then certainly it must follow from the axioms that govern the existential universe, and be discoverable through the scientific method.
What we can all obviously agree on is, that the phenomenon of consciousness is profound beyond simple description.
My current line of study into the question of consciousness is algorithms.
It seem's to me that human consciousness is capable of accomplishing things that are not replicable with the use of an algorithm.
Right now I am reading Murray Gell-Mann's "The Quark and the Jaguar".
It has a lot of information on Algorithmic Information Content, and Complex Adaptive Systems.
I don't know, give me twenty years and I might have a strong guess to throw down.
| « Evolution of Christianity | Benefits of organised religion? » |
| Bookmarks |
Bookmarks |
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
