Hello everyone!
I am a huge fan of literature exploring scientific (biopsychological/cognitive/neuronal) explanations for spiritual beliefs. I’ve read many of the most well-known; Sam Harris, Dawkins (more strictly biological examples), Shermer, etcetera. Can anyone recommend either:
- The one de facto trump card piece of literature in debunking spiritual beliefs with a scientific/rationalist/perhaps materialist angle? Or: if you were to agree with a theist to read just one piece of their literature in exchange for something you could pick - and had to recommend just ONE book to change someone’s mind…what would it be?
(For any potential theists here - what would YOUR one book be for the skeptics?)
- Other authors in the same vein that I may not have heard about?
Thanks a lot for any guidance you can provide
Hello everyone!
I am a huge fan of literature exploring scientific (biopsychological/cognitive/neuronal) explanations for spiritual beliefs. I’ve read many of the most well-known; Sam Harris, Dawkins (more strictly biological examples), Shermer, etcetera. Can anyone recommend either:
1. The one de facto trump card piece of literature in debunking spiritual beliefs with a scientific/rationalist/perhaps materialist angle? Or: if you were to agree with a theist to read just one piece of their literature in exchange for something you could pick - and had to recommend just ONE book to change someone’s mind…what would it be?
(For any potential theists here - what would YOUR one book be for the skeptics?)
2. Other authors in the same vein that I may not have heard about?
Thanks a lot for any guidance you can provide
I don't know if its a "trump card" book, but Scott Atran - http://www.amazon.com/Gods-Trust-Evolutionary-Landscape-Evolution/dp/0195178033
Going down the rabbit hole of following MA’s link, I found these two books:
Religion Explained: The Evolutionary Origin of Religious Thought], by Pascal Boyle
and
Darwin’s Cathedral: Evolution, Religion, and the Nature of Society], by David Sloan Wilson.
I haven’t read any of these three books, but have downloaded samples to my iPhone and placed them at the top of my reading queue.
Oh yeah. Welcome to the CFI forums.
Here’s a few to start you off:
Joe Nickell’s Looking For a Miracle
Paul Offit’s Do You Believe in Magic
Oliver Sac’s Hallucinations
Plus ANYTHING by James Randi
Cap’t Jack
letsbefriends,
What is a ‘spiritual belief’?
Read Sam Harris: ‘Waking Up: A Guide to Spirituality Without Religion’.
The term spiritual is as nonsensical as the term supernatural. Supernatural is a term of absolute arrogance that would logically demand a complete and total understanding of the entire universe in order to determine any event happening it as ‘supernatural’.
Spiritual just seems to be a term to invoke mumbo jumbo with no rational basis or logic behind it.
The term spiritual is as nonsensical as the term supernatural. Supernatural is a term of absolute arrogance that would logically demand a complete and total understanding of the entire universe in order to determine any event happening it as 'supernatural'.
Spiritual just seems to be a term to invoke mumbo jumbo with no rational basis or logic behind it.
Sam Harris defends an understanding of spirituality that is completely compatible with modern science.
As you probably know, Sam Harris is one of the '
Four Horsemen]', and one of the well-known 'New Atheists'. So he probably has another understanding of what spirituality is than you have.
It is not for nothing that I asked the OP what a spiritual belief is. Now I also have to ask you what in your opinion spirituality is.
It is not for nothing that I asked the OP what a spiritual belief is. Now I also have to ask you what in your opinion spirituality is.
I answered that already. It's a nonsensical term used to invoke mumbo jumbo and has no rational basis or real common definition behind it.
It is not for nothing that I asked the OP what a spiritual belief is. Now I also have to ask you what in your opinion spirituality is.
I answered that already. It's a nonsensical term used to invoke mumbo jumbo and has no rational basis or real common definition behind it.
You cannot say that is is mumbo jumbo if you don't know what is meant by it. So again, what do you understand under spirituality? Belief in spirits? Trying to get at peace with the universe as it is? Becoming one with God? Trying to live with the facts about what we really are? Feeling awe for the universe? (Which would mean that you think Carl Sagan believed in mumbo jumbo. Well maybe you do.) etc etc.
To be short: I have still no idea what exactly you find mumbo jumbo if you do not say what you think spirituality is.
PS: He OP, are you still there?
Atran is genius - and Pascal Boyer. Both of them are great resources for anyone interested in evolutionary (and neural/cognitive) understandings of spiritual beliefs (Boyer’s Religion Explained, if you just want to pick one of the two!).
Have not heard of all the others, will be looking them up. Thanks for all the suggestions everyone.
As for the ‘spirituality’ I’m interested in; it’s not the same as simply substituting supernatural explanations for things. ‘Spirituality’, for me, goes way deeper - it becomes threaded into what makes up one’s life and views of the cosmos (and our place therein). One’s supernatural view of something like ghosts does not dictate much more than one’s behavior concerning them - whereas, I think, spirituality carries the connotation of a way of life. Spiritual beliefs can be supernatural, but supernatural beliefs don’t need to be spiritual…if that makes sense. Even a love of scientific, empirical research can be spiritual but is obviously not one simply invoking mumbo jumbo. For a more ‘scientific’ explanation of the dichotomy, Boyer (and Shermer) in particular references a host of chemical brain-states which we can identify via PET/fMRI scans that accompany cherished religious beliefs - but not, say, one referencing ghosts or dark matter…
You cannot say that is is mumbo jumbo if you don't know what is meant by it. So again, what do you understand under spirituality? Belief in spirits? Trying to get at peace with the universe as it is? Becoming one with God? Trying to live with the facts about what we really are? Feeling awe for the universe? (Which would mean that you think Carl Sagan believed in mumbo jumbo. Well maybe you do.) etc etc.
To be short: I have still no idea what exactly you find mumbo jumbo if you do not say what you think spirituality is.
You just proved my point for me by listing examples. I specifically said that the term has no common definition and invokes irrational nonsense. I personally don't appeal to the term spirituality for anything, just as I don't appeal to the term supernatural either as I originally explained.
As for Sagan, I'm aware he felt awe for the universe. Slapping the term spirituality onto that again just proves my point the term is nonsensical. If one feels awe for the universe, one describes that as awe.
You just proved my point for me by listing examples. I specifically said that the term has no common definition and invokes irrational nonsense. I personally don't appeal to the term spirituality for anything, just as I don't appeal to the term supernatural either as I originally explained.
Hmmm. Then you should also find relativity theory and quantum theory mumbo jumbo. They both also invoke a hell of a lot of irrational nonsense.
You just proved my point for me by listing examples. I specifically said that the term has no common definition and invokes irrational nonsense. I personally don't appeal to the term spirituality for anything, just as I don't appeal to the term supernatural either as I originally explained.
Hmmm. Then you should also find relativity theory and quantum theory mumbo jumbo. They both also invoke a hell of a lot of irrational nonsense. :lol:
letsbefriends,
I asked you what spiritual beliefs are, because I think spirituality has nothing to do with what you believe: it is a matter of how you believe. Note that nearly every religion has its spiritual corners, so only this fact already makes it difficult to connect spirituality to certain belief-contents.
So I think spirituality is that you do not just want to believe what your religion tells you, you want to experience it. In montotheism, you strive to see God, in Hinduism one wants to get ‘behind’ Samsara, in Buddhism one wants to reach for Nirwana. They all have in common that somehow people want to see what reality really is behind the scenes.
Now the question is if such a project makes sense in a modern scientific world view. I think it perfectly does. In a modern world view, we know we are ‘just’ complicated chemical reactions, that quite incidentally came into existence in a universe that doesn’t care one bit about our existence. But we do not live from these truths:
- we live our lives as if our selves are real, and not illusions created by the brain
- we feel that we are separated from the universe as individuals, where in fact we are part of it, even created by it
- we feel as if we have libertarian free will, where we in fact are caused, just as everything else
So we do not live according what our ‘true teaching’ says. So spirituality in a modern world view is perfectly possible, and in no contradiction with it.
Hmmm. Then you should also find relativity theory and quantum theory mumbo jumbo. They both also invoke a hell of a lot of irrational nonsense.
So you can present evidence for spirituality equivalent to the evidence for general relativity and quantum mechanics?
So you can present evidence for spirituality equivalent to the evidence for general relativity and quantum mechanics?
I assume you posted this before my previous posting. As you see there, there is nothing to find evidence for. Spirituality is not about reality, but how you want to relate with it.
So you can present evidence for spirituality equivalent to the evidence for general relativity and quantum mechanics?
I assume you posted this before my previous posting. As you see there, there is nothing to find evidence for. Spirituality is not about reality, but how you want to relate with it.
So in other words, exactly what I've been saying. An undefined term that appeals to mumbo jumbo.
So in other words, exactly what I've been saying. An undefined term that appeals to mumbo jumbo.
So you think science does not say that the self is an illusion? And you really feel that way?
Wow.
So in other words, exactly what I've been saying. An undefined term that appeals to mumbo jumbo.
So you think science does not say that the self is an illusion? And you really feel that way?
Wow.
I'm not making claims about perception of self nor particularly concerned about what scientific evidence says about perception of self.
That is irrelevant to my position that spirituality is a nonsensical term and people simply appeal to mumbo jumbo when invoking the term. My position is the term 'spirituality' is useless and undefined, just like my example term of 'supernatural' I mentioned previously. Although supernatural at least has some common definition and concept behind it, even if it is useless. Spirituality doesn't even have that.
So in other words, exactly what I've been saying. An undefined term that appeals to mumbo jumbo.
So you think science does not say that the self is an illusion? And you really feel that way?
Wow.
I'm not making claims about perception of self nor particularly concerned about what scientific evidence says about perception of self.
That is irrelevant to my position that spirituality is a nonsensical term and people simply appeal to mumbo jumbo when invoking the term. My position is the term 'spirituality' is useless and undefined, just like my example term of 'supernatural' I mentioned previously. Although supernatural at least has some common definition and concept behind it, even if it is useless. Spirituality doesn't even have that.
Robert Walper - you're missing the point. 'Spiritual' and 'supernatural' are demarcations for separate ideas. One can be the other but definitely does not always need to be; it's a case of playing with semantics. We need terms for things we don't fully understand or cannot fully define because we still use the words for operational definitions. This is why other posters asked me for a starting definition, rather than telling me it's an undefined term - which is useless. You can't have a definitive description for something like art either, because it's at least somewhat subjective...which is why any discussion thereof should likely be preceded by an operational definition. Needing one does not imply that we're invoking nonsense or can't achieve anything insightful about art.
Sam Harris's most recent book Waking Up had a perfect disclaimer for people like yourself:
Before going any further, I should address the animosity that many readers feel toward the term spiritual. Whenever I use the word, as in referring to meditation as a “spiritual practice," I hear from fellow skeptics and atheists who think that I have committed a grievous error. The word spirit comes from the Latin spiritus, which is a translation of the Greek pneuma, meaning “breath." Around the thirteenth century, the term became entangled with beliefs about immaterial souls, supernatural beings, ghosts, and so forth. It acquired other meanings as well: We speak of the spirit of a thing as its most essential principle or of certain volatile substances and liquors as spirits. Nevertheless, many nonbelievers now consider all things “spiritual" to be contaminated by medieval superstition. I do not share their semantic concerns. ... there is no other term—apart from the even more problematic mystical or the more restrictive contemplative—with which to discuss the efforts people make, through meditation, psychedelics, or other means, to fully bring their minds into
the present or to induce nonordinary states of consciousness.
He included an operational definition, which is something I probably should have done - but hopefully that clarifies the point for you.