Religion and Ethics Forum
Religion and Ethics Discussion => Theism and Atheism => Topic started by: Khatru on February 15, 2016, 02:50:21 PM
-
Despite what many believers will tell you, religion has no monopoly on this and you certainly don't need to invoke the supernatural in order to have a spiritual experience.
When you experience feelings of awe, mystery, connection, gratitude, etc, you have a psychological state that satisfies the definition of spiritual. No gods required.
-
By a total coincidence about an hour ago I finished reading Sam Harris's Waking Up: Searching for Spirituality Without Religion. (Clue is in the sub-title).
-
Sorry, that seems like the same definition pish we get about god is love, Carter USM and moral shininess. Gratitude is spirituality? My hairy arse is too then.
-
Sorry, that seems like the same definition pish we get about god is love, Carter USM and moral shininess. Gratitude is spirituality? My hairy arse is too then.
I often have spiritual feelings about your hairy arse ;)
-
I often have spiritual feelings about your hairy arse ;)
'I saw the crescent, you saw the whole of the moon'
-
It might be easier to say that religion is not theism. There are tons of religions and religious practices which are not theistic in intention or result. Whether or not they end up with NS's hairy arse, is an exciting question to contemplate.
I have done Zen meditation for decades, and it is definitely not God-oriented. Well, it is not anything oriented actually. One of my favourite Zen sayings is 'no path'.
-
Despite what many believers will tell you, religion has no monopoly on this and you certainly don't need to invoke the supernatural in order to have a spiritual experience.
When you experience feelings of awe, mystery, connection, gratitude, etc, you have a psychological state that satisfies the definition of spiritual. No gods required.
I wouldn't consider awe etc as spiritual. I think spiritual carries with it ideas of gods or something 'beyond' so wouldn't use it for things like that.
-
I wouldn't consider awe etc as spiritual. I think spiritual carries with it ideas of gods or something 'beyond' so wouldn't use it for things like that.
Buddhists and Jains wouldn't agree with you there on the god bit.
-
Dear Khatru,
Who are these many believers? my only argument is that those experiences are God.
Gonnagle.
-
Buddhists and Jains wouldn't agree with you there on the god bit.
What about the 'or something 'beyond''?
-
What about the 'or something 'beyond''?
Possibly not that bit, though even there it depends on the individual.
-
I've just come back from town via a stupidly long route through the countryside. It's a tricky route so there's something meditative about it, but it also affords some of the most beautiful views of the local landscape. There's always big skies here - today we drove through a hail storm, and then as we cleared the crest of the last hill the sun burst through the clouds and in front of us were the gently unfolding East Anglian hills criss crossed with hedges and the odd farm building.
That to me is the essence of spirituality - it's the things that we feel we don't need to do but in reality need as much as food and drink. They are the things that give life meaning, keep us in the moment, give us perspective. The things that feed the part of us that loves the smell of rosemary and the touch of a dog's soft head, a walk in drizzle and laughing til our sides hurt. No need for gods, the supernatural or religion.
-
By a total coincidence about an hour ago I finished reading Sam Harris's Waking Up: Searching for Spirituality Without Religion. (Clue is in the sub-title).
It's a blooming miracle.
-
I like this definition best, so I'd say yes to the op.
A spiritual person is one who seeks to elevate himself, to connect with a higher power, or simply his higher self. He believes there is more to the world than what is easily seen, than what is merely physical. He will have certain guidelines of behavior and diet that he will go by, but all in the name of properly attuning with the infinite and entering some higher state of consciousness. Tibetan monks are the best example of the spiritual.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/peter-baksa/has-anyone-ever-told-you-_b_5587762.html
Although I'd say the diet and guidelines of the behaviour may not exist or differ greatly.
Basically I think it is something which is felt, a connected ness.
Like an astronomer looking at the stars and feeling a sense of wonder.
Or looking at a beautiful flower and admiring it's beauty.
The spiritual side can be the feeling you get looking past something's physical function and seeing something greater, or more than.
It's hard to define, because it's different and individual to each person.
It can happen to anyone.
Thinking we are all made of stardust, is sort of spiritual.
-
A spiritual person is one who seeks to elevate himself, to connect with a higher power, or simply his higher self. He believes there is more to the world than what is easily seen, than what is merely physical. He will have certain guidelines of behavior and diet that he will go by, but all in the name of properly attuning with the infinite and entering some higher state of consciousness.
That seems to knock me out of the spirituality business, then.
"Properly attuning with the infinite" comes over as pseudo-profound wibble designed to sound impressive but which actually conveys no informational content whatever.
My guidelines for behaviour and diet are: try not to be a dick (the Atheist's Commandment), and eat whatever tastes nice without robbing another sentient creature of its existence, respectively.
Whether there is anything that is more than merely physical I don't know. I don't know how it would be possible to know. I do know that I've never been furnished with any reason to think so. The very physical world and the experience of being in it seem inexhaustibly marvellous to me as they are, without add-ons.
Perhaps this is a definition of the fundamental difference between believers and non-believers - the former are the ones for whom the world as it is is never enough, and who want to pile on that extra layer of gods and devils, angels and demons and whatnot.
-
Yes, as soon as 'higher states' and 'attuning to the infinite' gets mentioned you are heading for the kind of thinking that sees spirituality as something that proclaims one's superiority rather than as something that simply nourishes the needs we have that go beyond the physical. And language like that excludes people who don't see any need for layers of woo, and there's no need for it.
-
That seems to knock me out of the spirituality business, then.
"Properly attuning with the infinite" comes over as pseudo-profound wibble designed to sound impressive but which actually conveys no informational content whatever.
My guidelines for behaviour and diet are: try not to be a dick (the Atheist's Commandment), and eat whatever tastes nice without robbing another sentient creature of its existence, respectively.
Whether there is anything that is more than merely physical I don't know. I don't know how it would be possible to know. I do know that I've never been furnished with any reason to think so. The very physical world and the experience of being in it seem inexhaustibly marvellous to me as they are, without add-ons.
Perhaps this is a definition of the fundamental difference between believers and non-believers - the former are the ones for whom the world as it is is never enough, and who want to pile on that extra layer of gods and devils, angels and demons and whatnot.
"Properly attuning to the infinite" could just mean feeling awe at how small you are, in comparison to the rest of it.
I find the sound of waves striking a beach spiritual, thinking they have been doing that for an age, even when different creatures roamed the earth.
That's a sort of connectedness in that the waves were the same for you as they were then.
A sort of rhythm.
You don't need Gods or Demons to feel that.
The more than there, is the connectedness of the waves now, and the waves then.
It doesn't have to be a supernatural " more than"
-
Yes, very true.
I really must get my finger out and do that thread on pantheism I've been planning ...
-
Yes, for me it's clouds. Feeling small's good.
-
Yes, as soon as 'higher states' and 'attuning to the infinite' gets mentioned you are heading for the kind of thinking that sees spirituality as something that proclaims one's superiority rather than as something that simply nourishes the needs we have that go beyond the physical. And language like that excludes people who don't see any need for layers of woo, and there's no need for it.
I wasn't excluding anyone.
Different things trigger spirituality in different people, no matter what language you use, it's somehow inadequate.
-
Yes, for me it's clouds. Feeling small's good.
Waves and clouds :)
Two aspects of nature.
-
And 'properly attuning to the infinite' could mean that feeling you get when there is one slice less of bacon than needed on the sandwich. It's a deepity, it appears to have no meaning at all and yet, there is the straight idea that you can attune to the infinite improperly. What might that involve? Is that Jimmy Savile feeling up the infinite?
What is 'the infinite' that we are supposed to attune to properly? What if you added 1 to it, would one need to re-attune? What if an infinite number of infinites turned up? Would there by multiple infinites, an infinity of them, or is that just the hotel bar bill?
-
I wasn't excluding anyone.
No, not you - I think Rhiannon was referring to the fact that sometimes that kind of language can turn into a pissing contest about who is more spiritually advanced than somebody else. Properly attuning to the infinite already implies that there's an improper way to do it - i.e. move out of the way, you're doing it wrong.
-
Yes, as soon as 'higher states' and 'attuning to the infinite' gets mentioned you are heading for the kind of thinking that sees spirituality as something that proclaims one's superiority rather than as something that simply nourishes the needs we have that go beyond the physical. And language like that excludes people who don't see any need for layers of woo, and there's no need for it.
I do wonder if the term 'spirituality' is losing all meaning. I get the idea of beyond the physical, so looking at a painting does that, but then if I enjoy a meal, I am not simply registering taste and texture.
-
I do wonder if the term 'spirituality' is losing all meaning. I get the idea of beyond the physical, so looking at a painting does that, but then if I enjoy a meal, I am not simply registering taste and texture.
Tricky, wiggy, tricky. I know what I mean when I use the term, but it has become so comprehensively privatised that in a sense it has become a sort of private language, population 1, and that's never good for communication.
-
No, not you - I think Rhiannon was referring to the fact that sometimes that kind of language can turn into a pissing contest about who is more spiritually advanced than somebody else. Properly attuning to the infinite already implies that there's an improper way to do it - i.e. move out of the way, you're doing it wrong.
Exactly.
-
Thought so :P
-
No, not you - I think Rhiannon was referring to the fact that sometimes that kind of language can turn into a pissing contest about who is more spiritually advanced than somebody else. Properly attuning to the infinite already implies that there's an improper way to do it - i.e. move out of the way, you're doing it wrong.
Yes I have encountered that, occasionally.
They normally have a much narrower definition of Spiritual.
I think Richard Dawkins claims to be spiritual and an Athiest, I was trying to find something on it.
http://youtu.be/eCX4vAsRo90
-
Yes I have encountered that, occasionally.
They normally have a much narrower definition of Spiritual.
I think Richard Dawkins claims to be spiritual and an Athiest, I was trying to find something on it.
Given it was part of the definition you agreed with, might suggest you didn't really look at what it said.
-
Tricky, wiggy, tricky. I know what I mean when I use the term, but it has become so comprehensively privatised that in a sense it has become a sort of private language, population 1, and that's never good for communication.
Yes, I have a lot of New Age friends who talk about spirituality, and I genuinely don't know what they mean now, except nice feelings. I suppose bad feelings are non-spiritual!
-
Tricky, wiggy, tricky. I know what I mean when I use the term, but it has become so comprehensively privatised that in a sense it has become a sort of private language, population 1, and that's never good for communication.
Well, maybe it's one of those words for whom we all have individual meanings. Someone like Alan Burns will have strict definitions for 'spirit' and 'soul' so 'spirituality' will fit a very strict set of criteria. For others it will be things such as prayer, a belief in angels or 'spirit' but without religion that qualifies as 'spiritual'. Some of us here don't recognise a 'spirit' as such but nevertheless accept we have something inside that likes and loves - but then we could debate whether we believe the self is illusory or not or whatever. So maybe it just has to be a word with a very individual meaning.
-
Given it was part of the definition you agreed with, might suggest you didn't really look at what it said.
Yes I can see that it can be read that way now, but my perception of spirituality is very wide, wide enough to accept Athiests like Richard Dawkins have a spiritual side.
Perhaps I could have chosen a better definition.
-
If it does have an individual definition, then very individual is like very unique, and means as a term it is useless for discussion.
-
Yes, I have a lot of New Age friends who talk about spirituality, and I genuinely don't know what they mean now, except nice feelings. I suppose bad feelings are non-spiritual!
Yes, I have New Age friends too and for them spirituality is very much about taking bad feelings away.
-
If it does have an individual definition, then very individual is like very unique, and means as a term it is useless for discussion.
And yet here we are discussing it.
I think people tend to gravitate more towards one definition or another. Do maybe it depends on who it is you are having the discussion with. I can discuss it and find common ground with Shaker, Rose and Wiggs but couldn't with most of our Christian posters.
-
" A spiritual person is one who seeks to elevate his perspective , to connect with a sense of timeless wonder, or simply his higher self or his connectedness and smallness within the universe."
Not sure that's any better, because we are all so different.
Some people might use smell and aromatherapy to achieve the same effect.
It's one of those terms it's hard to define, it's a bit woolly.
;)
-
Yes, I have New Age friends too and for them spirituality is very much about taking bad feelings away.
I remember week-end groups in the 70s and 80s, which promised bliss and happiness, well, OK, for a few hours, why not. Please give me a spiritual cheque, and that includes spiritual VAT.
-
Yes I can see that it can be read that way now, but my perception of spirituality is very wide, wide enough to accept Athiests like Richard Dawkins have a spiritual side.
Perhaps I could have chosen a better definition.
This is after all the definition that you said was the best you.knew, and yet you don't seem to agree with it. How then do I even have a clue about why Dawkins might or might not be spiritual for you, and how could we agree or disagree that he is it isn't.
Note I don't think this is really an issue with.your approach, just it is a word that is used a bit like god as if there is a useful common agreed logically consistent meaning, but I don't think there is.
-
And yet here we are discussing it.
I think people tend to gravitate more towards one definition or another. Do maybe it depends on who it is you are having the discussion with. I can discuss it and find common ground with Shaker, Rose and Wiggs but couldn't with most of our Christian posters.
But are any of the definitions meaningful and logically consistent. Theists seems to be able to discuss god as if it has those attributes in definitional terms but I don't see it
-
This is after all the definition that you said was the best you.knew, and yet you don't seem to agree with it. How then do I even have a clue about why Dawkins might or might not be spiritual for you, and how could we agree or disagree that he is it isn't.
Note I don't think this is really an issue with.your approach, just it is a word that is used a bit like god as if there is a useful common agreed logically consistent meaning, but I don't think there is.
What about this one?
"Spirituality is a broad concept with room for many perspectives. In general, it includes a sense of connection to something bigger than ourselves, and it typically involves a search for meaning in life. As such, it is a universal human experience—something that touches us all. "
Richard Dawkins probably finds his sense of connection in the natural world and universe (as science portrays it)and mans search for knowledge, his meaning of life is probably drawn from that.
Same I reckon for Stephen Hawking.
Neither of them believe in God, but I'd say the human quest for knowledge, probably leads their sense of spirituality.
It's sort of a feeling or connectiveness or awe
They don't need a God or religious belief tacked on. ( in fact part of that awe requires not adding on God IMO )
So I think they are spiritual in that sense, they are questing for knowledge on something bigger than us, ( the universe) which forms a meaning in their own lives.
Richard Dawkins talks about it here
http://youtu.be/Are53Pg0hZ8
They certainly come across as spiritual in that sense, it's as much an emotional response and their enthusiastic approach suggests they have that side to them.
-
I wouldn't consider awe etc as spiritual. I think spiritual carries with it ideas of gods or something 'beyond' so wouldn't use it for things like that.
By doing that, I think you are allowing the religious to think they have a monopoly on the word.
-
Despite what many believers will tell you, religion has no monopoly on this and you certainly don't need to invoke the supernatural in order to have a spiritual experience.
When you experience feelings of awe, mystery, connection, gratitude, etc, you have a psychological state that satisfies the definition of spiritual. No gods required.
It probably depends upon how you define 'spiritual' and 'religion'. 'Spirit' is a Latin based word which I believe means 'breath, breeze, air' and probably symbolised 'life'. As such it is not so much a search for inner 'psychological' experiences but as Jesus might have put it 'to have life more abundantly' a byproduct of which is joy or bliss. The word 'religion' also has a Latin origin and meant 're-bind'. It is probably best suited to Christianity as it has a doctrine of 'the fall' and it implies a reunion with the divine. Organised religions generally have within them methods about how to achieve this but also persuasive methods on how to bind the individual to the flock.
-
What about this one?
"Spirituality is a broad concept with room for many perspectives. In general, it includes a sense of connection to something bigger than ourselves, and it typically involves a search for meaning in life. As such, it is a universal human experience—something that touches us all. "
Richard Dawkins probably finds his sense of connection in the natural world and universe (as science portrays it)and mans search for knowledge, his meaning of life is probably drawn from that.
Same I reckon for Stephen Hawking.
Neither of them believe in God, but I'd say the human quest for knowledge, probably leads their sense of spirituality.
It's sort of a feeling or connectiveness.
They don't need a God or religious belief tacked on.
So I think they are spiritual in that sense, they are questing for knowledge on something bigger than us, ( the universe) which forms a meaning in their own lives.
They certainly come across as spiritual in that sense, it's as much an emotional response and their enthusiastic approach suggests they have that side to them.
But that 'search for something bigger' doesn't take into account the aspect of spirituality that is about living mindfully in the moment. That is very often about focussing on the smallest or most familiar things without ascribing any deeper meaning to them.
-
Sorry, Rose, but that's one of those definitions that seems to be so wide that it's meaningless. What is connectiveness (is that even a word?). Is an elephant 'bigger than ourselves'? What does 'bigger' mean there? How does it deal with the problem of hard solipsism, or indeed what 'ourselves' might mean there?
I've posted before jokingly that I worship the great god Dunno, there are times when I suspect that spirituality might be other people's Dunno
-
Good point, Rhiannon. The talk of 'going beyond' is contradicted by those practices which do the opposite. For example, Zen, oh well, the usual stuff. But I remember 'be here now' also, I think that was Ram Dass. Don't avoid life, which again, some New Age people do.
-
Dear Sane,
Connectiveness, hows this, three men sitting in a pub, slightly drunk, listening to folk music, they all had big smiles on their faces, each experiencing the same thing, I would say they were all connected, in that small moment.
Was it a spiritual moment, you bet yer hairy arse it was :P God was with us in that moment.
Gonnagle.
-
Good point, Rhiannon. The talk of 'going beyond' is contradicted by those practices which do the opposite. For example, Zen, oh well, the usual stuff. But I remember 'be here now' also, I think that was Ram Dass. Don't avoid life, which again, some New Age people do.
Yep, Ram Dass it was.
I'm reading a book at the moment called The Trauma of Everyday Life by Dr Mark Epstein, a therapist and Buddhist, and the first chapter is called The Way Out is Through. It's really important to remember that, I've found - not just so that you don't avoid life to start with but that when going through it you bear in mind that means you are heading always for the light at the end of the tunnel, even if you can't see it.
-
But that 'search for something bigger' doesn't take into account the aspect of spirituality that is about living mindfully in the moment. That is very often about focussing on the smallest or most familiar things without ascribing any deeper meaning to them.
True.
🌹
-
As ever when I get drawn into one of these discussions about something as fluffy as spirituality, I turn to Schopenhauer. This whole burning, burning, yearning feeling inside is about our inability to be anything more than that.
-
Connectiveness, hows this, three men sitting in a pub, slightly drunk, listening to folk music, they all had big smiles on their faces, each experiencing the same thing, I would say they were all connected, in that small moment.
They were sharing an experience but how were the connected?
-
It's not accurate to describe spirituality as universally fluffy. There are kinds of it that are difficult, meditation being one, some kinds of cloistered lives being another.
-
Dear Sane,
Connectiveness, hows this, three men sitting in a pub, slightly drunk, listening to folk music, they all had big smiles on their faces, each experiencing the same thing, I would say they were all connected, in that small moment.
Was it a spiritual moment, you bet yer hairy arse it was :P God was with us in that moment.
Gonnagle.
I take the point, Gonzo, and I think we are back at Rhiannon's point about small moments. There is an Edwin Morgan poem called iirc Aberdeen Train that refers to.'a Chinese moment in the Mearns' about seeing a vista like something filled with significance like a willow pattern, and yet is made up of nothing significant itself. Perhaps that's the best we can do.
-
It's not accurate to describe spirituality as universally fluffy. There are kinds of it that are difficult, meditation being one, some kinds of cloistered lives being another.
I didn't, I used fluffy in the sense of nebulous
-
I take the point, Gonzo, and I think we are back at Rhiannon's point about small moments. There is an Edwin Morgan poem called iirc Aberdeen Train that refers to.'a Chinese moment in the Mearns' about seeing a vista like something filled with significance like a willow pattern, and yet is made up of nothing significant itself. Perhaps that's the best we can do.
This is exactly what it is to me - small moments, small things, that somehow add up to a life.
-
I didn't, I used fluffy in the sense of nebulous
Well, 'fluffy' is often used to describe the kind of New Age stuff Wiggs and I were talking about. If you mean hard to grasp or pin down, then yes, I see where you are coming from.
-
It's not accurate to describe spirituality as universally fluffy. There are kinds of it that are difficult, meditation being one, some kinds of cloistered lives being another.
That's right. I stopped doing serious meditation, as it is so painful and exhausting and frightening. The old joke: will enlightenment free me from suffering? No, it will teach you how to suffer.
-
Dear Maeght,
They were sharing an experience but how were the connected?
Connected by the experience, we all shared it, it happens in Church, probably skiers find this connection, surfers, sky divers, they all find connectness in the experience.
Gonnagle.
-
They were sharing an experience but how were the connected?
I suspect the clue is in the word sharing.
-
If it does have an individual definition, then very individual is like very unique, and means as a term it is useless for discussion.
Actually, no. I say that because unique has a very clear, specific, exact and absolute meaning that individual doesn't. It is my individual opinion that the slow movement of Beethoven's String Quartet no. 15 in A minor is sublimely, tear-inducingly beautiful; if you don't agree, well, that's up to you. But it remains individual and can never be anything but. It's an individual opinion which, shared by however many people, isn't unique, by definition.
Unique is simpler and clearer. I am unique in that there is almost certainly no accumulation of atoms anywhere else in the universe (not even if many worlds/parallel universe hypotheses are true) like this one. But of course, that's true for you too.
-
Actually, no. I say that because unique has a very clear, specific, exact and absolute meaning that individual doesn't. It is my individual opinion that the slow movement of Beethoven's String Quartet no. 15 in A minor is sublimely, tear-inducingly beautiful; if you don't agree, well, that's up to you. But it remains individual and can never be anything but. It's an individual opinion which, shared by however many people, isn't unique, by definition.
Unique is simpler and clearer. I am unique in that there is almost certainly no accumulation of atoms anywhere else in the universe (not even if many worlds/parallel universe hypotheses are true) like this one. But of course, that's true for you too.
So what's the difference between a very individual experience and an individual one? What's the comparator mean?
-
So what's the difference between a very individual experience and an individual one? What's the comparator mean?
If I'm honest I don't even understand the question.
The best I can give you is that individual means something and very individual to me at least doesn't. The word very does no useful work here; it's baggage that adds nothing to the intended meaning.
-
If I'm honest I don't even understand the question.
The best I can give you is that individual means something and very individual to me at least doesn't. The word very does no useful work here; it's baggage that adds nothing to the intended meaning.
Which was the point I was making, there isn't any way adding 'very' helps. A thing is either unique or not, individual or not. We add the idea of 'very' as a sort of boldening to emphasise it, and give it some form validity it doesn't deserve.
-
Dear Maeght,
Connected by the experience, we all shared it, it happens in Church, probably skiers find this connection, surfers, sky divers, they all find connectness in the experience.
Gonnagle.
So how right is this Schulman quote then?
We are always alone. We are never alone. Even in the center of a crowd of friends , we cannot escape our apartness; even in the locked and darkened room, we cannot cut ourselves off from our sense of the life going on outside.
I shared my car drive earlier with one of my kids and I felt connected as part of the shared experience. Yet what we both got from it will have been unique, what we felt, thought about, what it left us with. I think points of connection occur when you know that somehow the person or people you are with gets what it is that you are looking at together in the same way that you do, and you know that or they communicate it to you and you get that moment of shared understanding, whilst acknowledging and even celebrating that the experience isn't identical for you both/all.
-
Dear Me,
So we are all spiritual, we can all touch God, even if you don't believe in God, that's nice.
Gonnagle.
-
This is exactly what it is to me - small moments, small things, that somehow add up to a life.
I have read a good old many books by various thinkers to this effect - never mind grand narratives and big stories and overarching themes; life is lumpy (like Frank Zappa's gravy) and is composed of bits.
Matches my experience, anyway.
-
Dear Me,
So we are all spiritual, we can all touch God, even if you don't believe in God, that's nice.
Gonnagle.
Dear Me (not you, I mean Me); that's what I say to myself every day I draw breath.
Love, regards and best wishes,
Me.
-
I suspect the clue is in the word sharing.
Doesn't mean there is a connection. Shared experience means to have the same experience but a connection implies a link between people through which information or similar is exchanged.
-
Dear Me,
So we are all spiritual, we can all touch God, even if you don't believe in God, that's nice.
Gonnagle.
Not really.
-
I have read a good old many books by various thinkers to this effect - never mind grand narratives and big stories and overarching themes; life is lumpy (like Frank Zappa's gravy) and is composed of bits.
Matches my experience, anyway.
And that seems to me to be quite comforting. Trying to produce an epic story seems like far too much effort; if I only need to manage this bit and then the next then that's quite doable. Although thinking of it as a colourful (if mismatched) patchwork quilt is more poetic than lumpy gravy.
-
Doesn't mean there is a connection. Shared experience means to have the same experience but a connection implies a link between people through which information or similar is exchanged.
It must be just me, then, and my grasp of English at fault; that's exactly what I understand sharing to be.
-
I have read a good old many books by various thinkers to this effect - never mind grand narratives and big stories and overarching themes; life is lumpy (like Frank Zappa's gravy) and is composed of bits.
Matches my experience, anyway.
Very good. Granulation is OK.
-
Very good. Granulation is OK.
I desperately want to take this man out for a pint or several.
-
It must be just me, then, and my grasp of English at fault; that's exactly what I understand sharing to be.
No, no link or communication implied in sharing. People could all sit together and watch a play for example - they are sharing the experience of watching the play, but what they get out of it might be different and there is no link between the people. That's how I see it anyway. Saying people are connected implies to me something more than just sharing an experience.
-
No, no link or communication implied in sharing. People could all sit together and watch a play for example - they are sharing the experience of watching the play, but what they get out of it might be different and there is no link between the people. That's how I see it anyway. Saying people are connected implies to me something more than just sharing an experience.
But that's what I talked about earlier - the connection is seeing the same thing even though you know that every individual experience is unique. You mentioned a connection comes from sgsying information - watching a play or hearing a folk band play is just that.
-
Dear Rhiannon,
Spiritual, connected ness, they are feelings but as Shaker points out we are all unique, so the joy we feel might be different but we all felt joy, in that one moment we all felt joy, that's the connection.
And on thinking, if you want to analyse it, we could have found lots of connections, the sound of the fiddle, the buzz in the pub, there would probably have been lots of feelings that we had in common.
I don't think I am saying anything controversial, if someone describes a moment of joy, others can relate, I have heard it so many times, "yes I know exactly what you are talking about".
Gonnagle.
-
But that's what I talked about earlier - the connection is seeing the same thing even though you know that every individual experience is unique. You mentioned a connection comes from sgsying information - watching a play or hearing a folk band play is just that.
So how is that being connected? Connected has a specific meaning doesn't it? A link, an exchange, not just watching the same thing.
-
Dear Rhiannon,
Spiritual, connected ness, they are feelings but as Shaker points out we are all unique, so the joy we feel might be different but we all felt joy, in that one moment we all felt joy, that's the connection.
And on thinking, if you want to analyse it, we could have found lots of connections, the sound of the fiddle, the buzz in the pub, there would probably have been lots of feelings that we had in common.
I don't think I am saying anything controversial, if someone describes a moment of joy, others can relate, I have heard it so many times, "yes I know exactly what you are talking about".
Gonnagle.
No disagreement from me there, Gonners.
-
So how is that being connected? Connected has a specific meaning doesn't it? A link, an exchange, not just watching the same thing.
See Gonners's post, he's put it far better than I could.
-
Read it, and seems to me to be describing shared experiences rather than any connection between people.
-
Read it, and seems to me to be describing shared experiences rather than any connection between people.
Ok, so what do you think is the difference?
-
Dear Rhiannon,
Spiritual, connected ness, they are feelings but as Shaker points out we are all unique, so the joy we feel might be different but we all felt joy, in that one moment we all felt joy, that's the connection.
Hey, I think Turner's Norham Castle: Sunrise is ecstatic communion with the world I live in and glimpse occasionally for myself, and is God as far I understand the term. But what do I know :)
http://goo.gl/6a2f38
-
Ok, so what do you think is the difference?
I've explained this in replies 66, 72 and 74.
-
I've explained this in replies 66, 72 and 74.
Ok, but if you take just reply 66, Gonner's folk music experience was a sharing of information in the sense that everything we understand consists of information. Add to that the joy of being with friends and you have a connectedness of sharing.
-
Dear Maeght,
So how is that being connected? Connected has a specific meaning doesn't it? A link, an exchange, not just watching the same thing.
There was a link, an exchange, a connection, sharing is connecting, sounds right to me.
Gonnagle.
-
Dear Maeght,
There was a link, an exchange, a connection, sharing is connecting, sounds right to me.
Gonnagle.
I'm not getting the difference either ???
-
Nor me.
-
Dear Shaker,
Turner :o :o
The Fighting Temeraire, sad but beautiful at the same time ;) actually ghostly beautiful, I know what I mean :o
Gonnagle.
-
I'm with Maeght, the connectivity is the stretch to the noumenal, claiming that the stretch makes it true, doesn't for me.
-
I love art, love music, but a pebble or a piece of moss covered wood is where I look to find 'god'. Or a snail shell, a puddle, snowdrops. The rows I've had on here about the fact I look at a sunset and see 'god'.
Trouble is I'm not sure what 'god' actually means to me these days.
-
I love art, love music, but a pebble or a piece of moss covered wood is where I look to find 'god'. Or a snail shell, a puddle, snowdrops. The rows I've had on here about the fact I look at a sunset and see 'god'.
Trouble is I'm not sure what 'god' actually means to me these days.
Yes, insects are my thang these days. I can stare at hoverflies and shield bugs for ages. I don't see it as spiritual or religious really, there's no need to classify it at all, that detracts from it.
-
Yes, insects are my thang these days. I can stare at hoverflies and shield bugs for ages. I don't see it as spiritual or religious really, there's no need to classify it at all, that detracts from it.
I don't want to narrow it down to this or that - if I can find it not far from my front door then it's my thing. Spiritual yes, just because it feeds my spirit. Religious? No.
Fennel's the thing to grow if you like hoverflies. But you probably know that.
-
There's a lot of stuff in Zen about emptiness, and when I stare at an insect, there is a kind of emptiness, which I like. But then there is liking, which is not empty!
Our garden in Norfolk is full of hoverflies and bees. In London, we get shield bugs, which start off green, and then turn bronze as the summer goes on. True happiness.
-
I don't know if nature makes me feel empty - I would say it completes me. But then maybe I lose myself in it. No bad thing.
I love snails, if I find one I often let it sit on my hand for a bit so I can truly look. I'd make a rubbish allotment gardener.
-
Dear Maeght,
There was a link, an exchange, a connection, sharing is connecting, sounds right to me.
Gonnagle.
Electric light bulbs in the house are separate as bulbs, are connected and share the same power. Some may shine more brightly than others, some may be switched off or disconnected from the power source. Perhaps this analogy indicates the difference between religion which thinks in terms of duality e.g. the light bulb and its connection to the power source (God?), whereas spirituality seeks for unity e.g. I and the power are one (I am the way, the truth and the life?). It is similar to two of the Vedanta schools of thought ... dvaita and advaita (twoism or not-twoism, that is the question).
-
Despite what many believers will tell you, religion has no monopoly on this and you certainly don't need to invoke the supernatural in order to have a spiritual experience.
When you experience feelings of awe, mystery, connection, gratitude, etc, you have a psychological state that satisfies the definition of spiritual. No gods required.
I suppose it depends on what one understands by the terms 'spirit' and 'spirituality', Khat. The top definition of spiritual (of 4) on www.oxforddictionaries.com is
Relating to or affecting the human spirit or soul as opposed to material or physical things:
(Only the 4th refers to religion, specifically)
For those for whom everything is material or physical, the very concept of the soul or spirit is a problem and hence the term 'spiritual'.
-
That's not entirely accurate, Hope. I use 'spirit' or 'soul' interchangeably to mean 'inner person' - the things that make us who we are - and 'spirituality' as the practice of nurturing that. But I don't have a belief that it exists outside of the physical or exists after death. It's possible, but it seems unlikely.
-
For those for whom everything is material or physical, the very concept of the soul or spirit is a problem and hence the term 'spiritual'.
Not if you define those words in your own way.
-
What exactly do you mean by 'spiritual', Hope?
-
I don't know if nature makes me feel empty - I would say it completes me. But then maybe I lose myself in it. No bad thing.
I love snails, if I find one I often let it sit on my hand for a bit so I can truly look. I'd make a rubbish allotment gardener.
Snail lover here too. A walk after rain (which brings snails out in force) always takes me twice as long as I keep stopping to pick them off the pavement to put them somewhere they won't be trodden on. Worms too.
-
Snail lover here too. A walk after rain (which brings snails out in force) always takes me twice as long as I keep stopping to pick them off the pavement to put them somewhere they won't be trodden on. Worms too.
I'm exactly the same. I can't tell you how awful I feel if I accidentally hurt a worm while turning a border.
-
Dear Shaker and Rhiannon,
Worms, Gods little cultivators, snail, slugs >:( that's when you raise your eyes to heaven and say, your having a laugh big man, especially when that big fat juicy strawberry you have eyed, watch grow, ripen, only to find the pesky things got there before you :(
Gonnagle.
-
I use 'spirit' or 'soul' interchangeably to mean 'inner person' - the things that make us who we are - and 'spirituality' as the practice of nurturing that.
I like that
I was thinking having read this thread that spirituality, like beauty, is simply a matter of taste. I've always considered it to be about the illusion that we are more than the sum of our parts. An illusion it may be but a apparently universal human experience that we have to learn to live with - hence spirituality. And it doesn't have to entail religion or the supernatural, simply whatever works for the individual, whatever helps the make sense of it and, as you nicely put it, nourishes them.
Its a useful term I think. So often its words that give form to our ideas, allowing us to wrestle with them. If we didn't have the word spirituality, we wouldn't be able to discuss the notion or attempt any kind of definition for those elusive feelings for which words like joy, happiness, contentment and self aren't quite satisfactory.
-
That's not entirely accurate, Hope. I use 'spirit' or 'soul' interchangeably to mean 'inner person' - the things that make us who we are - and 'spirituality' as the practice of nurturing that. But I don't have a belief that it exists outside of the physical or exists after death. It's possible, but it seems unlikely.
That's why I was fairly vague in my comment, Rhi. As Shaker says in his post that follows yours, "Not if you define those words in your own way" - but, of course, anyone can define anything in any way, at which point discussion becomes meaningless. I suspect that there's a 'fallacy' title for Shakes' suggestion. (Unique definition fallacy?) ;)
-
That's why I was fairly vague in my comment, Rhi. As Shaker says in his post that follows yours, "Not if you define those words in your own way" - but, of course, anyone can define anything in any way, at which point discussion becomes meaningless. I suspect that there's a 'fallacy' title for Shakes' suggestion. (Unique definition fallacy?) ;)
It's not a fallacy of any kind - it simply relies on any other party/the audience being aware of the term and how it's being used. That comes about by careful explanation. After that, no problem.
-
Dear Samuel,
I am getting the impression from this thread that we are all spiritual, its the words we use, Love, Happiness, Contentment, Mystery, Awe, Bliss, Joy, Connectivity, Wonder, the list is endless, they are all uplifting words, we also have words like, Empathy, Compassion, Pity, all spiritual.
But what about, Pain, Sadness, Sorrow, are they spiritual words, course they are, it is all about emotion, we are all spiritual animals and only because it is me, somewhere in all this, God is.
Gonnagle.
-
By a total coincidence about an hour ago I finished reading Sam Harris's Waking Up: Searching for Spirituality Without Religion. (Clue is in the sub-title).
Sam Harris has been namechecked a few times lately - I'll definitely need to check him out.
-
Dear Khatru,
Who are these many believers? my only argument is that those experiences are God.
Gonnagle.
To me, "God" or indeed, gods are religious concepts used to try and explain or account for imagined qualities and substances that cannot be identified in our world any more than leprechauns.
I see it as a category where the whole idea of the supernatural belongs.
Contrast that with the natural, which I see as covering everything that exists, including what we have yet to discover.
The term "supernatural" gives people a green light to not only make up whatever beings they want but also to endow these beings with self-contradictory and magical abilities. I see it all the time with believers when they refer to their particular choice of deity as being uncreated and somehow living outside of and unaffected by the passage of time. Yet their god still thinks and acts inside and outside of our natural realm.
It's funny but it's often the case that once believers have given their construct a free pass by placing it in the envisioned supernatural realm, they then become quite rigorous about what must be true in the natural world - the only world we know.
From a point of reason, the whole thing comes over to me as a logical nightmare, excused by the one word - "supernatural". It's a fallacy of special pleading whereby whatever the believer places in this supernatural realm gets excused from the scepticism and scrutiny.
-
To me, "God" or indeed, gods are religious concepts used to try and explain or account for imagined qualities and substances that cannot be identified in our world any more than leprechauns.
I see it as a category where the whole idea of the supernatural belongs.
Contrast that with the natural, which I see as covering everything that exists, including what we have yet to discover.
The term "supernatural" gives people a green light to not only make up whatever beings they want but also to endow these beings with self-contradictory and magical abilities. I see it all the time with believers when they refer to their particular choice of deity as being uncreated and somehow living outside of and unaffected by the passage of time. Yet their god still thinks and acts inside and outside of our natural realm.
It's funny but it's often the case that once believers have given their construct a free pass by placing it in the envisioned supernatural realm, they then become quite rigorous about what must be true in the natural world - the only world we know.
From a point of reason, the whole thing comes over to me as a logical nightmare, excused by the one word - "supernatural". It's a fallacy of special pleading whereby whatever the believer places in this supernatural realm gets excused from the scepticism and scrutiny.
Superbly true post.
-
Electric light bulbs in the house are separate as bulbs, are connected and share the same power. Some may shine more brightly than others, some may be switched off or disconnected from the power source. Perhaps this analogy indicates the difference between religion which thinks in terms of duality e.g. the light bulb and its connection to the power source (God?), whereas spirituality seeks for unity e.g. I and the power are one (I am the way, the truth and the life?). It is similar to two of the Vedanta schools of thought ... dvaita and advaita (twoism or not-twoism, that is the question).
Yes the light bulbs are connected to the same power source by wires. How does this help regarding humans watching the same event?
-
Dear Khatru,
Sam Harris, he doesn't like the words atheism or atheist, he prefers free thinker, are you an atheist or a free thinker, I am reminded of the lady on radio 2 yesterday talking about praying for Prof Dawkins, she was an atheist, not a free thinker, the subject was prayer, she turned it into a discussion about evolution.
Anyway :)
To me, "God" or indeed, gods are religious concepts used to try and explain or account for imagined qualities and substances that cannot be identified in our world any more than leprechauns.
Imagined qualities, is Love imagined, compassion, sorrow, happiness, pain, these are all words I equate with God, you wouldn't because you think there is no God, you would say, this is how we evolved, well that's fine, but I say thank God for helping us to evolve into Loving, Caring, Compassionate creatures.
Supernatural, once again, is Love, Compassion, Empathy supernatural, no they are real, just like God.
Gonnagle.
-
Supernatural, once again, is Love, Compassion, Empathy supernatural, no they are real, just like God.
Gonnagle.
Love, Compassion, Empathy, etc., are real emotions, firmly entrenched in the natural world of nervous responses.
We have nothing but guesses about what is meant by "supernatural".
-
Sam Harris has been namechecked a few times lately - I'll definitely need to check him out.
Apart from The Moral Landscape I've read all his books (there aren't many) and it's well worth doing so.
-
I've skipped some of this thread, is there a post in it that defines the phrase "spiritual experience" in a way that achieves consensus amongst the posters? I think a definition is vital to answering the question of the title.
-
Dear Leonard,
Supernatural, that's yours and Khatrus word, not mine, God is as natural as the whole living breathing world, as natural as the Universe, as natural as you and me.
Love, Compassion, Empathy, etc., are real emotions, firmly entrenched in the natural world of nervous responses.
Yes, Thank God for our nervous responses.
Gonnagle.
-
I've skipped some of this thread, is there a post in it that defines the phrase "spiritual experience" in a way that achieves consensus amongst the posters? I think a definition is vital to answering the question of the title.
I very much doubt it - if anything it seems to run the other way, and people interpret the term on an individual basis.
-
I very much doubt it - if anything it seems to run the other way, and people interpret the term on an individual basis.
In that case, for me, the answer is yes.
-
In that case, for me, the answer is yes.
Same. I can't find anything to disagree with in Gonners' #104, for example.
-
Love, Compassion, Empathy, etc., are real emotions, firmly entrenched in the natural world of nervous responses.
We have nothing but guesses about what is meant by "supernatural".
Hardly surprising when we are Gods creation made from the elements of the universe.
However the antitheist mind such as yours is entrenched in a kind of romantic reductionist view that unconscious voltage and consciousness are exactly the same thing and that anything greater than voltage is an illusion....... To which we have to reply "what is being illuded?"
-
Hardly surprising when we are Gods creation made from the elements of the universe.
However the antitheist mind such as yours is entrenched in a kind of romantic reductionist view that unconscious voltage and consciousness are exactly the same thing and that anything greater than voltage is an illusion....... To which we have to reply "what is being illuded?"
You need to look up the word "voltage" in a dictionary.
-
You need to look up the word "voltage" in a dictionary.
Or, indeed, most words.
-
You need to look up the word "voltage" in a dictionary.
I'm sorry Jez but as you know all science reduces to physics.
Volta demonstrated that what people called the life force was in fact electricity.
And many have stuck with a romantic Mary Shelley view based on simple experiments such as Voltas.
-
I'm sorry Jez but as you know all science reduces to physics.
Volta demonstrated that what people called the life force was in fact electricity.
You are using "voltage" in a context which demonstrates that you clearly do not know what it means.
And many have stuck with a romantic Mary Shelley view based on simple experiments such as Voltas.
I'm sorry to have to inform you of this, but Frankenstein is a work of fiction.
-
You are using "voltage" in a context which demonstrates that you clearly do not know what it means.
I'm sorry to have to inform you of this, but Frankenstein is a work of fiction.
Yes its potential difference.
I'm not the one who romantically thinks that we are all unconscious robots worked by electricity illuded into thinking we are conscious.
Frankenstein is a work of fiction but it's central message of romantic reductionism is a prevailing world view.
-
Or, indeed, most words.
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
Thanks, Steve ... my first big laugh today. Although I confess to have been chuckling and grinning a lot, as I am rereading a William book.
-
Always happy to oblige, youngster ;)
-
Or, indeed, most words.
Well I know the word Wanker and am replying to one now.
-
Dear Vlad,
Wanker with a capital W, was there any need for that :(
Gonnagle.
-
Dear Vlad,
Wanker with a capital W, was there any need for that :(
Gonnagle.
Haven't you noticed this sums up Vlad's posting style of late? As with ad-o's endless insults it reveals much about the person making them and absolutely nothing about the supposed targets.
I'm sure the fact that they're both Christians is merely coincidental.
-
It's also really sad to see a lovely discussion with posters sparking ideas off one another being trashed by one of the theists. Same thing happened on the Seasons thread on the pagan board.
-
It's also really sad to see a lovely discussion with posters sparking ideas off one another being trashed by one of the theists. Same thing happened on the Seasons thread on the pagan board.
Yes ... that was disappointing to say the least :(
-
I agree Rhiannon although to be fair Jeremy and Shakes were not too shy to join in. And then Len picked it up and it instantly became another 'isn't Vlad a moron, tehehe' thread.
In my book they are all as bad as each other. But then, we've all behaved in a similar manner on here at some point.
-
Dear Rhiannon,
Nope, what I notice, well with Vlad, I liken his comments to, it's like that old couple on the Muppets, these guys have been at it so long, it is water off a ducks back, Shaker and Vlad, when they are having a dig at each other, pure genius comedy, Shakers comment about words, not only brought a big smile to Leonard's face but also to mine.
Gonnagle.
PS: Should that be pure comedy genius :o
-
I agree Rhiannon although to be fair Jeremy and Shakes were not too shy to join in.
So when Fa Tarse writes a post that is totally nonsensical, I should ignore it?
-
It depends on what you'd prefer to talk about Jeremy, more of Vlad's inevitable endless, and somewhat entertaining nonsense or the actual content of the thread.
-
I agree Rhiannon although to be fair Jeremy and Shakes were not too shy to join in. And then Len picked it up and it instantly became another 'isn't Vlad a moron, tehehe' thread.
In my book they are all as bad as each other. But then, we've all behaved in a similar manner on here at some point.
I freely admit that I'm as unable to resist the temptation to reply in like kind as the next man (if the next man is jeremy), but in all honesty, we had a really nice little thread going here chugging along peacefully with lots of interesting and thought-provoking contributions until Vlad waded in at #117 with the usual 'antitheism' shite.
As Rhiannon said, the 'Seasons' thread on the Pagan board suffered a similar dismal fate.
-
It depends on what you'd prefer to talk about Jeremy, more of Vlad's inevitable endless, and somewhat entertaining nonsense or the actual content of the thread.
I think the content of the thread was already over. Gonagle provided a reasonable definition of "spiritual" as long as one ignores his slipping the word "god" in there and that allows us to answer the question in the affirmative.
-
fair enough
-
I think the content of the thread was already over. Gonagle provided a reasonable definition of "spiritual" as long as one ignores his slipping the word "god" in there and that allows us to answer the question in the affirmative.
Counsel for the defence however submits that Gonners was quite clear about that being his own personal take on it:
...we are all spiritual animals and only because it is me, somewhere in all this, God is.
-
Dear Jeremyp,
Fatarse, really :( see Rhiannon, they have been at it for ever, and I don't envy your job as a moderator.
Now have a stern word with them all, there are none blameless.
Gonnagle.
-
I don't know if nature makes me feel empty - I would say it completes me. But then maybe I lose myself in it. No bad thing.
I love snails, if I find one I often let it sit on my hand for a bit so I can truly look. I'd make a rubbish allotment gardener.
Interesting point about losing oneself. I see this as important in 'spirituality', although it's very difficult to describe. What is it that I have lost? Errm, a concept of self I suppose, in Buddhism, the separate self, and also in some areas of Christianity actually. Often called self-abandonment, and in New Age Christianity this = the crucifixion.
-
It's disappointing to say the least when all decent discussion is going the same way. It devalues the time and effort put in by other posters and I for one am beginning to question what the point is.
-
Counsel for the defence however submits that Gonners was quite clear about that being his own personal take on it:
Yes, but it chimed with how I would define "spiritual" except for the god bit which I took to be an optional extra.
-
Interesting point about losing oneself. I see this as important in 'spirituality', although it's very difficult to describe. What is it that I have lost? Errm, a concept of self I suppose, in Buddhism, the separate self, and also in some areas of Christianity actually. Often called self-abandonment, and in New Age Christianity this = the crucifixion.
Wiggs: at the outset I mentioned that I'd just finished reading Sam Harris's Waking Up: Searching for Spirituality Without Religion. I highly recommend it as I think you'd appreciate it very much - almost the entirety of the book is given over to how Buddhism and cutting-edge neuroscience converge on there being no identifiable, pin down-able 'I', no inherent self, only the contents of consciousness from moment to moment. Very, very interesting stuff. Whether I agree is another matter - I need to think on it much more - but the evidence that Harris marshals and the arguments he presents are highly persuasive.
-
Dear Jeremyp,
Fatarse, really
It's Fa Tarse, the space is important. In case you didn't figure it out, it's a play on "Hugh Janus" which is Vlad's current (entirely voluntaryforced on him by an ancient Catholic conspiracy) nom de plume.
-
Dear Wigs,
Yes, you stop thinking about yourself, you become focused on the subject, all the mundane flies away, caught in the moment, but then does that mean the lose of a love one is not spiritual.
Gonnagle.
-
Interesting point about losing oneself. I see this as important in 'spirituality', although it's very difficult to describe. What is it that I have lost? Errm, a concept of self I suppose, in Buddhism, the separate self, and also in some areas of Christianity actually. Often called self-abandonment, and in New Age Christianity this = the crucifixion.
For me it's about losing the story. I head out the door with a story of who I am and what's going on, and if I'm lucky - it doesn't always happen - I lose the story in that moment and it melts away. Whether the story's good or bad, it's a way of getting a grip, getting perspective.
-
Dear Jeremyp'
Ah right!! my apologies. :P :P
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gag_name
Gonnagle.
-
It's Fa Tarse, the space is important. In case you didn't figure it out, it's a play on "Hugh Janus" which is Vlad's current (entirely voluntary) nom de plume.
What? You mean I wasn't forced to do it by an evil Catholic conspiracy dating back to the council of Nicea. ..........That must be a first.
-
What? You mean I wasn't forced to do it by an evil Catholic conspiracy dating back to the council of Nicea. ..........That must be a first.
My apologies. I've amended the post.
-
My apologies. I've amended the post.
Ah....things back to how they should be.
-
Dear Vlad,
Wanker with a capital W, was there any need for that :(
Gonnagle.
He take criticism of his belief system far too personally.
-
That Sam Harris book, Waking Up', sounds really interesting, but of course it is not available from NLB *sigh*. I'll see if I can find out whether there is any audio version available.
There's a video of first chapter ... I've listened to a few minutes so far.
-
Dear Khatru,
Sam Harris, he doesn't like the words atheism or atheist, he prefers free thinker, are you an atheist or a free thinker, I am reminded of the lady on radio 2 yesterday talking about praying for Prof Dawkins, she was an atheist, not a free thinker, the subject was prayer, she turned it into a discussion about evolution.
Anyway :)
Imagined qualities, is Love imagined, compassion, sorrow, happiness, pain, these are all words I equate with God, you wouldn't because you think there is no God, you would say, this is how we evolved, well that's fine, but I say thank God for helping us to evolve into Loving, Caring, Compassionate creatures.
Supernatural, once again, is Love, Compassion, Empathy supernatural, no they are real, just like God.
Gonnagle.
Am I an atheist or a free thinker?
If by atheist you mean someone who doesn't believe in the existence of any gods (I use the plural because there are indeed many gods out there that are and have been worshipped) then guilty as charged.
However, I accept I may be wrong and there is/are a supreme cosmic mega being(s) responsible for creating the whole shebang.
Does that make me agnostic? Well, if it does I certainly have strong atheist tendencies!
i also loke the term "secular humanist" and sometimes I feel it fits me.
Re: the list of qualities
I don't see them as being imagined as I experience them in my reality. To me, the imagined bit is when those qualities are linked to God, Allah, Brahma, Zoroaster, etc.
-
Yes the light bulbs are connected to the same power source by wires. How does this help regarding humans watching the same event?
To be honest, I read Gonagle's post out of context with the posts which lead up to it and my mind was still on the distinction between spirituality and religion. However, I have dug back to this quote of yours "Doesn't mean there is a connection. Shared experience means to have the same experience but a connection implies a link between people through which information or similar is exchanged." I suspect what is meant is that the experience is of an event which a number of people share and the connection or link is an emotional one which is common to those sharing the experience, rather than an exchange of information. You can see tears in the eyes of people who witness a particular scene, you can almost see the joy in the hearts of those singing in a choir and such emotions can spread and embrace others in a kind of infectious unity.
-
'Connectiveness' as Gonnagle sought to illustrate it also needs some 'contextiveness'.
The three puggled men are friends, they have history, they are in a place sacred to them, both as where they first met, and where they return to meet. The music is a bonus of the place, because it is sacred to others, a meeting place, a sharing place, a spiritual place.
-
Dear ekim,
I suspect what is meant is that the experience is of an event which a number of people share and the connection or link is an emotional one which is common to those sharing the experience, rather than an exchange of information. You can see tears in the eyes of people who witness a particular scene, you can almost see the joy in the hearts of those singing in a choir and such emotions can spread and embrace others in a kind of infectious unity.
Exactly, an emotional connection.
Gonnagle.
-
Dear Sane,
The three puggled men are friends, they have history, they are in a place sacred to them, both as where they first met, and where they return to meet. The music is a bonus of the place, because it is sacred to others, a meeting place, a sharing place, a spiritual place.
It is a spiritual place, if those walls could talk, do you believe in ghosts :P no, of course you don't, but something hangs around in there waiting to be brought to life with banter and music.
Gonnagle.
-
Dear Sane,
It is a spiritual place, if those walls could talk, do you believe in ghosts :P no, of course you don't, but something hangs around in there waiting to be brought to life with banter and music.
Gonnagle.
We are our own ghosts as we travel through time, connected but endlessly different, the sum of our failing memories, fading from the copied thoughts which lose clarity but gain shade, depth.
-
To be honest, I read Gonagle's post out of context with the posts which lead up to it and my mind was still on the distinction between spirituality and religion. However, I have dug back to this quote of yours "Doesn't mean there is a connection. Shared experience means to have the same experience but a connection implies a link between people through which information or similar is exchanged." I suspect what is meant is that the experience is of an event which a number of people share and the connection or link is an emotional one which is common to those sharing the experience, rather than an exchange of information.
Indeed, but it is describing that as a connection which I am doubting since this implies more than a shared experience to me.
You can see tears in the eyes of people who witness a particular scene, you can almost see the joy in the hearts of those singing in a choir and such emotions can spread and embrace others in a kind of infectious unity.
Again, I quite agree. but I wouldn't describe that as a connection. It is the use of this word which I doubt, not the scenarios, since the word implies to me more than just a shared experience and common emotions and is used by some, I believe, to imply something more.
-
Dear Maeght,
I am not describing anything deep here, or supernatural, just an OH!! moment, a two minds thinking alike moment, the sharing is the connection, you mentioned that there needs to be a link, an exchange, there was, three big daft stupid grins for one.
What about, we were in harmony, what about our celtic souls connected to the music, what about the spirit moved us, I had two large bells if I remember correctly.
Gonnagle.
-
Dear Maeght,
I am not describing anything deep here, or supernatural, just an OH!! moment, a two minds thinking alike moment, the sharing is the connection, you mentioned that there needs to be a link, an exchange, there was, three big daft stupid grins for one.
What about, we were in harmony, what about our celtic souls connected to the music, what about the spirit moved us, I had two large bells if I remember correctly.
Gonnagle.
That's fine Gonnagle, carry on referring to it as a connection if you wish of course. I don't think the word is suitable and that it can imply more, even if you aren't implying more by using it. I think I've made my point and there's no point in just repeating it - if people don't agree that's fine by me.
Cheers
-
Dear Maeght,
Fair enough old son, agree to disagree, it's only a forum ;)
Gonnagle.
-
We are our own ghosts as we travel through time, connected but endlessly different, the sum of our failing memories, fading from the copied thoughts which lose clarity but gain shade, depth.
Classic Sane. Enigmatic, beautiful, insightful, and yet economical. You ought to bottle that.
-
We are our own ghosts as we travel through time, connected but endlessly different, the sum of our failing memories, fading from the copied thoughts which lose clarity but gain shade, depth.
That's poetry, that is.
-
That's poetry, that is.
Arse!
-
....Pretentiousness following...Pretentiousness following...
That last bit needs to be read in a Lord Haw-Haw tone...
Almost everything I write on here is an attempt to move beyond the noumenal, even, or rather particularly the swear words. People write more now than ever, and just because so much of that writing is 'sock ma dix, u whamket' is not a reason to despise it.
Hope's question about communities is valid. However, dysfunctional we are, there is a form of support there. One that isn't easily replicable beyond the virtual. Even though Gonnagle and I live in the same glorious city, close by, we would have passed, may well have passed, on the street. Yet today we know each other. Today we can name our parts.
This small sceptred community allows me to write baroque nonsense, that beyond it would bewitch, bother and bewilder (and does to many here), and that is worth rubies.
So thank you.
-
Even though Gonnagle and I live in the same glorious city, close by, we would have passed, may well have passed, on the street. Yet today we know each other. Today we can name our parts.
Fnar ;)
-
Fnar ;)
Ah indeed, Finbar Saunders forever. But in case anyone doesn't know the referenced poem
http://www.solearabiantree.net/namingofparts/namingofparts.html
-
We are our own ghosts as we travel through time, connected but endlessly different, the sum of our failing memories, fading from the copied thoughts which lose clarity but gain shade, depth.
Urgh! What's with all these old fogies on here and their whistful and maudlin reflections on life?
In the immortal words of Bill Murray "I'm aliiiiive, and so are you!"
...really I'm as big a fan of Sane as anyone else on here. I liked that point about writing. There is a lot of it about. One of my greatest pleasures on these boards is to find a post that includes an exquisite articulation of an idea or feeling that I've never managed to quite get a handle on. It's something to admire and savour. I suppose that is when writing becomes art.
-
I agree, Sam. In fact it has been pondered whether we should have some kind of creative writing board.
-
My spirituality is as essential to me as the air I breathe. In the darkest times I've known I can still look at the clouds, the stars, the earth. and knowing that they were there before and will be after whatever troubles me makes me smaller and so my distress shrinks too. And the love I have for the life around me makes me love my own life more. The moments of pure joy found in gazing at a sunset or standing under moonlit trees, walking over frosted fields or singing too loudly on the car, are the things that gave me hope of more to come and still do. And that hope gives me the courage to try for more and think that better is possible.
-
I agree, Sam. In fact it has been pondered whether we should have some kind of creative writing board.
I like that idea!
-
If we get enough takers the mods could be persuaded...
-
Yes I like the idea too.
:)
-
I could be persuadable ...
-
I could be persuadable ...
I have been creative with my writing on this board and am constantly vilified for it.
What will be different?
-
I have been creative with my writing on this board and am constantly vilified for it.
Creative only in the same sense that chimps are creative with their faeces though, Vlad ;)
Visually impressive to look at, but you don't want to get too close to it.
-
I have been creative with my writing on this board and am constantly vilified for it.
What will be different?
Vlad, 'creative writing' isn't synonymous with 'lying'.
-
Dear Wigs,
Yes, you stop thinking about yourself, you become focused on the subject, all the mundane flies away, caught in the moment, but then does that mean the lose of a love one is not spiritual.
Gonnagle.
Yes, I had an intensely spiritual experience when my older brother died. For just a few moments I felt I was him.... had become him. But also, at some point, as a passenger in a car, I was watching the passing countryside; it is always beautiful but this time seemed to hold an extreme beauty; very difficult to put into words. This lasted for maybe 30 minutes then faded. I experienced too a closeness to God, a sense that I was being held and carried.... this gave great comfort.
I think spirituality contains many categories and, yes, means something different to all of us. For me quietness and stillness is essential.... the peace is like manna. It is as a fountain from which one can drink.
-
Hi everyone,
I have written about spirituality and how it is different from religions many times.
For example in Hindu tradition, Yoga, meditations, breathing exercises etc. are spiritual practices but they are secular. Praying at temples, following certain rituals, adopting certain lifestyles are religious practices which have a spiritual component but which also have social relevance and can be just beliefs and following of ancient traditions.
Spirituality is about self development and attempting to identify ones spiritual core. Religions also aim at spiritual development but more indirectly. They can involve religious teachers, texts, rituals, gods and many other practices of social and cultural relevance.
To put it simply, the attempt to move away from animal tendencies towards those aspects that are more human.... is 'spiritual'. Humanism is spiritual, vegetarianism is spiritual, animal welfare is spiritual, arts and appreciation of beauty is spiritual, charity and selflessness is spiritual, doing ones duties without self importance is spiritual.....and many more such things.
All these are 'spiritual' because they represent a part of us that has moved away from the animal. They represent a more civilized and a more evolved aspect of us.
Cheers.
Sriram
Ps: Even 'science' can be spiritual....without its self importance.
-
Hi everyone,
I have written about spirituality and how it is different from religions many times.
For example in Hindu tradition, Yoga, meditations, breathing exercises etc. are spiritual practices but they are secular. Praying at temples, following certain rituals, adopting certain lifestyles are religious practices which have a spiritual component but which also have social relevance and can be just beliefs and following of ancient traditions.
Spirituality is about self development and attempting to identify ones spiritual core. Religions also aim at spiritual development but more indirectly. They can involve religious teachers, texts, rituals, gods and many other practices of social and cultural relevance.
To put it simply, the attempt to move away from animal tendencies towards those aspects that are more human.... is 'spiritual'. Humanism is spiritual, vegetarianism is spiritual, animal welfare is spiritual, arts and appreciation of beauty is spiritual, charity and selflessness is spiritual, doing ones duties without self importance is spiritual.....and many more such things.
All these are 'spiritual' because they represent a part of us that has moved away from the animal. They represent a more civilized and a more evolved aspect of us.
Cheers.
Sriram
Ps: Even 'science' can be spiritual....without its self importance.
I go along with most of this, Sriram, but would like to point out that spirituality has no absolute definition; it is entirely relevant to the individual. Religion has some spiritual edicts, the most important of which is love your neighbour, but it also embraces much juvenile nonsense,
-
I go along with most of this, Sriram, but would like to point out that spirituality has no absolute definition; it is entirely relevant to the individual. Religion has some spiritual edicts, the most important of which is love your neighbour, but it also embraces much juvenile nonsense,
Len,
In Hinduism, we have always been taught that we have two parts within us, the Animal and the Divine. This is common knowledge even in popular culture. We are expected to slowly eliminate the first and increase the second.
But doing this directly is not easy for everyone. That is why other practices such as prayer, rituals and correct social behaviour and so on are prescribed for most people.
-
Len,
In Hinduism, we have always been taught that we have two parts within us, the Animal and the Divine. This is common knowledge even in popular culture. We were expected to slowly eliminate the first and increase the second.
But doing this directly is not easy for everyone. That is why other practices such as prayer, rituals and correct social behaviour and so on are prescribed for most people.
As long as that doesn't necessitate believing in 'gods' I have no argument.
-
Vlad, 'creative writing' isn't synonymous with 'lying'.
About what?
-
As long as that doesn't necessitate believing in 'gods' I have no argument.
Believing in gods is a natural and important part of being human. Its important for the spiritual development of most people. Without gods there is no sense of authority.
A child for example cannot be expected to understand and regulate its behaviour based on self control. It needs some form of an authority which it can obey (often out of fear). That's the way most humans are. This cannot be wished away.
-
Believing in gods is a natural and important part of being human. Its important for the spiritual development of most people. Without gods there is no sense of authority.
A child for example cannot be expected to understand and regulate its behaviour based on self control. It needs some form of an authority which it can obey (often out of fear). That's the way most humans are. This cannot be wished away.
But I'm afraid in the west too many prefer the caricatures and dislike authority figures and people they consider as spoilsports.
In the west people tal of belief as childish and then accumulate as many toys as they can.
-
But I'm afraid in the west too many prefer the caricatures and dislike authority figures and people they consider as spoilsports.
In the west people tal of belief as childish and then accumulate as many toys as they can.
That's how society often gets degenerated. When people become too clever for their own good and believe they don't need any teachers and any authority.
When fear and respect go away too early in a child...it gets spoilt.
-
Believing in gods is a natural and important part of being human. Its important for the spiritual development of most people. Without gods there is no sense of authority.
A child for example cannot be expected to understand and regulate its behaviour based on self control. It needs some form of an authority which it can obey (often out of fear). That's the way most humans are. This cannot be wished away.
Children are genetically inclined to follow the instructions of their parents, and should not be misled into belief in gods before they are old enough to reason and think for themselves.
-
Children are genetically inclined to follow the instructions of their parents, and should not be misled into belief in gods before they are old enough to reason and think for themselves.
Ha Ha. You just don't get what I am trying to say....do you?! Never mind.
-
Ha Ha. You just don't get what I am trying to say....do you?! Never mind.
Possibly not ... but on the other hand you may not be explaining yourself very clearly. :)
-
That's how society often gets degenerated. When people become too clever for their own good and believe they don't need any teachers and any authority.
When fear and respect go away too early in a child...it gets spoilt.
There is a phenomenon and culture of having a laugh........but question that and see how fast cynical smirks turn nasty.
-
There is a phenomenon and culture of having a laugh........but question that and see how fast cynical smirks turn nasty.
I believe it is the second stage of adolescence that most people in society are going through. It means skepticism, cynicism, self importance etc. It won't last long.
-
Anyone remember Carl Sagan and his TV series "Cosmos"?
Initially broadcast back in 1980, I guess it may be a bit creaky round the edges now.
Yet, back then, the way Sagan put it across was, at times, pretty spiritual. It certainly registered deeply with me and has stayed with me in a way that few documentary series have.
Who'd have thought I could get that connection from a TV show.
-
Possibly not ... but on the other hand you may not be explaining yourself very clearly. :)
You just have to think of many humans as being in the child stage (mentally and emotionally...not physically). Religions just provide what they need.
-
You just have to think of many humans as being in the child stage (mentally and emotionally...not physically). Religions just provide what they need.
That is rather condescending, and I don't think it's true. Such people, if they had not been misled in their childhood, would be perfectly capable of thinking as adults..
-
That is rather condescending, and I don't think it's true. Such people, if they had not been misled in their childhood, would be perfectly capable of thinking as adults..
Ok.... :)
-
You just have to think of many humans as being in the child stage (mentally and emotionally...not physically). Religions just provide what they need.
If you are correct about religions appealing to adults who are child-like mentally and emotionally then perhaps religion could be seen as being equivalent to other stuff targeted at child-like thinking: a version of 'Topsy and Tim go Shopping with Mummy', but with superstitious overtones and some miracles thrown in for good measure.
-
You just have to think of many humans as being in the child stage (mentally and emotionally...not physically)....
which recognises the neotenous nature of H. Sapiens. We are the ape that never grows up, we remain in extended childhood throughout our lives.
-
which recognises the neotenous nature of H. Sapiens. We are the ape that never grows up, we remain in extended childhood throughout our lives.
That would account for my occasional bouts of childish humour! :)
-
That is rather condescending, and I don't think it's true. Such people, if they had not been misled in their childhood, would be perfectly capable of thinking as adults..
And this post is no less condescending, Len. There are many highly intelligent people who couldn't be described as " ... being in the child stage (mentally and emotionally...not physically)....", who have a religious faith. The fact that some of them have been brought up in non-religious families, and others have rejected faith in their youth only to return to it later in life, indicates that the comment 'misled in their childhood, would be perfectly capable of thinking as adults' is somewhat moot.
-
which recognises the neotenous nature of H. Sapiens. We are the ape that never grows up, we remain in extended childhood throughout our lives.
Perhaps some have the potential to evolve from or transcend that state.
-
That would account for my occasional bouts of childish humour! :)
Very occasional.
-
And this post is no less condescending, Len. There are many highly intelligent people who couldn't be described as " ... being in the child stage (mentally and emotionally...not physically)....", who have a religious faith. The fact that some of them have been brought up in non-religious families, and others have rejected faith in their youth only to return to it later in life, indicates that the comment 'misled in their childhood, would be perfectly capable of thinking as adults' is somewhat moot.
Can you tell me where a non-religious culture exists?
-
Perhaps some have the potential to evolve from or transcend that state.
I think it's going the other way.............
-
which recognises the neotenous nature of H. Sapiens. We are the ape that never grows up, we remain in extended childhood throughout our lives.
Spirituality is a natural process. It is something most people are naturally drawn towards. Nothing supernatural about it. We have evolved from animals to humans and will evolve further such that we will eradicate most of our animal traits. This is probably written in our DNA. It is a natural progression and development that we can't help moving towards.
Different people will adopt different ways of moving forward. This is what in Hinduism are called the Path of Devotion, The Path of Action and the Path of Wisdom. Which path we will choose to follow will depend on our nature, mental and emotional state.
Even though we all grow up physically, many people tend to retain many of their childhood desires, fears and instabilities....because of their culture and social pressures. Such people will naturally tend to follow the devotional path because it is both nurturing and punitive, like a parent.
Others who are skeptical of authority and of devotional processes (because of their culture and social pressures) will also tend to retain many of these tendencies all their life. They will probably not follow any spiritual path consciously but will indulge in activities and humanism that will take them forward never the less.
People who are mentally mature and neither in need of parental influences nor of self indulgence...will follow the path of wisdom which is secular and involves conscious self awareness and self discipline.
Of course, these paths are not mutually exclusive and water tight. Most people will have a mix of all three with one of them dominating over the others.
Nor are any of these paths lower or higher than the others. they are just different processes and suitable for people of different natures.
Cheers.
Sriram
-
We have evolved from animals to humans and will evolve further such that we will eradicate most of our animal traits.
I hope you realise that this is arrant cobblers. We haven't "evolved from animals to humans"; we're still animals - animals which have evolved from earlier ancestors, but still animals. Only the desperate desire on the part of some people to deny this copper-bottomed fact led them to create a 'special' category called humans who are supposedly set apart from the rest. The evolutionary kinship of all life on Earth is a fact, but the vast majority of humans go about their days either not knowing of it or, even when they are aware of it, purposely ignoring it.
I don't think much of this idea that we're supposed to try to deny our animality; that leads to the sort of moronic human exceptionialism (beloved of much religion and theistic religion especially) which sees humans as not merely quantitatively but qualitatively different, and in every case that has been the pseudo-justification for every kind of use and abuse of other animals ever perpetrated.
-
I hope you realise that this is arrant cobblers. We haven't "evolved from animals to humans"; we're still animals - animals which have evolved from earlier ancestors, but still animals. Only the desperate desire on the part of some people to deny this copper-bottomed fact led them to create a 'special' category called humans who are supposedly set apart from the rest. The evolutionary kinship of all life on Earth is a fact, but the vast majority of humans go about their days either not knowing of it or, even when they are aware of it, purposely ignoring it.
I don't think much of this idea that we're supposed to try to deny our animality; that leads to the sort of moronic human exceptionialism (beloved of much religion and theistic religion especially) which sees humans as not merely quantitatively but qualitatively different, and in every case that has been the pseudo-justification for every kind of use and abuse of other animals ever perpetrated.
It reminds me of this poem by Alfred Noyes ;D
The New Duckling
'I want to be new,' said the duckling.
'O, ho!' said the wise old owl,
While the guinea-hen cluttered off chuckling
To tell all the rest of the fowl.
'I should like a more elegant figure,'
That child of a duck went on.
'I should like to grow bigger and bigger,
Until I could swallow a swan.
'I _won't_ be the bond slave of habit,
I _won't_ have these webs on my toes.
I want to run round like a rabbit,
A rabbit as red as a rose.
'I _don't_ want to waddle like mother,
Or quack like my silly old dad.
I want to be utterly other,
And _frightfully_ modern and mad.'
'Do you know,' said the turkey, 'you're quacking!
There's a fox creeping up thro' the rye;
And, if you're not utterly lacking,
You'll make for that duck-pond. Good-bye!'
'I won't,' said the duckling. 'I'll lift him
A beautiful song, like a sheep;
And when I have--as it were--biffed him,
I'll give him my feathers to keep.'
Now the curious end of this fable,
So far as the rest ascertained,
Though they searched from the barn to the stable,
Was that _only his feathers remained_.
So he _wasn't_ the bond slave of habit,
And he _didn't_ have webs on his toes;
And _perhaps_ he runs round like a rabbit,
A rabbit as red as a rose.
Alfred Noyes :
Wanting to be something more ;)
;D
-
I hope you realise that this is arrant cobblers. We haven't "evolved from animals to humans"; we're still animals - animals which have evolved from earlier ancestors, but still animals. Only the desperate desire on the part of some people to deny this copper-bottomed fact led them to create a 'special' category called humans who are supposedly set apart from the rest. The evolutionary kinship of all life on Earth is a fact, but the vast majority of humans go about their days either not knowing of it or, even when they are aware of it, purposely ignoring it.
I don't think much of this idea that we're supposed to try to deny our animality; that leads to the sort of moronic human exceptionialism (beloved of much religion and theistic religion especially) which sees humans as not merely quantitatively but qualitatively different, and in every case that has been the pseudo-justification for every kind of use and abuse of other animals ever perpetrated.
Ok...I'll bite this one time.
Scientific classification is not what I am talking about. We ARE humans and we ARE very very different from all other animals in most ways. We don't call ourselves Neanderthals just because we share a common past with them, do we?!
I know we have many similarities with animals because of our common origin but.... whether you like it or not...that is what we have been trying to eliminate all through history with our 'civilized societies'.
In fact that is what civilization is all about......becoming less animal. We have tried to develop our more human qualities such as humanism, compassion, self discipline, art and culture more and more in civilized societies. That is also what is considered as spiritual.
Animal abuse has not been perpetrated in Indian societies. Hinduism in fact recognizes that we all have an animal past. It is believed that we all have lived as animals in some past life....and share common experiences with them. Vegetarianism is common in India.
Calling ourselves animals wrongly re-emphasizes our past that we have branched away from long ago. We are never going back! It is regressive to continue to think of ourselves as animals (and never mind scientists).
-
A spiritual experience
The beauty of the trees, the softness of the air, the fragrance of the grass, speaks to me.
The summit of the mountain, the thunder of the sky, the rhythm of the sea, speaks to me.
The faintness of the stars, the freshness of the morning, the dew drop on the flower, speaks to me.
The strength of fire, the taste of salmon, the trail of the sun, and the life that never goes away they speak to me.
And my heart soars.
Chief Dan George
http://paganpoet.com/native-american-quotes-sayings-and-proverbs/
I don't think you need religion to relate to that one :)
-
A spiritual experience
I don't think you need religion to relate to that one :)
Pantheism, AFAIC.
-
Pantheism, AFAIC.
Yes
http://www.pantheism.net