The word "spiritualism" would seem to refer to spirits, often thought of as some form of intelligence outside of matter, or at least outside of our understanding of matter. It's entirely possible to make a case for something that could be called "spirits" without resorting to any supernatural claims. Not proof of course, just a reasonable case.I know I'm going to regret asking this, but can you give me an example of "some form of intelligence outside of matter, or at least outside our understanding of matter... without resorting to any supernatural claims"? I can't think of any right of the top. To hopefully avoid any confusion, when I say "spiritual", I'm not referring at all to "spiritualism", which is something different. I'm talking about things that relate only to the mind, things that "inspire". There is nothing supernatural about that.
I can't find the post you quoted, so I'll use your post to address the quotation. The term "the One" is misleading (by implication) and the following conclusion that being part of the One is therefore also misleading (by implication).The post was my OP. How can these forums be debate if people ignore the OP? It seems like the people complaining about specific words haven't bothered to assimilate it, even if they read it. There were qualifications and explanations. Perhaps not perfect, but words aren't perfect. I noted in that OP that people tend to put their own interpretations on words and in a later post noted the tendency debaters have to redefine words to suit their arguments. It is a logical fallacy made easier when context is ignored as seems to be the case with the objections here.
The universe is the One. As such I am a part of the one, along with everything else and collectively, everything is the One.
Is our heart a separate thing from our lungs?No-one responded to this but I expect all would accept that both are a part of the one that we call a human being. In mathematical terms, the heart set and the lung set are subsets of the human being set. The One is the set of all sets. Reverence is probably another word that evokes a knee-jerk response in people who feel they need to defend an atheist position. Defined formally as "deep respect for someone or something" and perhaps mixed with awe is the foundation of my view of the world. The processes that brought about this world we live in are awe-inspiring to me and go so far beyond the capabilities of humankind and even what most of humankind can comprehend that such awe becomes "spiritual". Not because it involves magic or supernatural but simply because it is so far beyond present human capabilities. It doesn't have to involve a plan or divine intervention. It is a greater comfort than either of these things to know that I am still a part of something (the natural universe) that brought me into existence and nurtured me and my ancestors, even before humanity. I am not a part of a plan or a goal. Just a stepping stone to something that the processes which created me will find more desirable - and I even find comfort in that, despite the notion that my kind are very unlikely to exist forever.
I can't find the post you quoted, so I'll use your post to address the quotation. The term "the One" is misleading (by implication) and the following conclusion that being part of the One is therefore also misleading (by implication).The post was my OP. How can these forums be debate if people ignore the OP? It seems like the people complaining about specific words haven't bothered to assimilate it, even if they read it. There were qualifications and explanations. Perhaps not perfect, but words aren't perfect. I noted in that OP that people tend to put their own interpretations on words and in a later post noted the tendency debaters have to redefine words to suit their arguments. It is a logical fallacy made easier when context is ignored as seems to be the case with the objections here.
The universe is the One. As such I am a part of the one, along with everything else and collectively, everything is the One.
Is our heart a separate thing from our lungs?No-one responded to this but I expect all would accept that both are a part of the one that we call a human being. In mathematical terms, the heart set and the lung set are subsets of the human being set. The One is the set of all sets. Reverence is probably another word that evokes a knee-jerk response in people who feel they need to defend an atheist position. Defined formally as "deep respect for someone or something" and perhaps mixed with awe is the foundation of my view of the world. The processes that brought about this world we live in are awe-inspiring to me and go so far beyond the capabilities of humankind and even what most of humankind can comprehend that such awe becomes "spiritual". Not because it involves magic or superbeing but simply because it is so far beyond present human capabilities. It doesn't have to involve a plan or divine intervention. It is a greater comfort than either of these things to know that I am still a part of something (the natural universe) that brought me into existence and nurtured me and my ancestors, even before humanity. I am not a part of a plan or a goal. Just a stepping stone to something that the processes which created me will find more desirable - and I even find comfort in that, despite the notion that my kind are very unlikely to exist forever.
@ JohnH,
Regardless of author, did I misquote the sentence? My response was not to the author but to the quoted passage. I still stand by it.
If you are the author, the answer is still the same.
Thanks for trying to get this thread back on track. Tanny and I are stuck in an endless loop.
To your question: “Can we find a justification beyond “it just seems right” to house the homeless, to feed the world’s hungry, to educate the world’s uneducated, to care for each other instead of fighting each other?"
I came up with this after participating in some local groups on how to build community.
If we are being at all, we should care for others. The reason for caring for others is that others cared for us. As we expand who we help, who we educate, more people will be able to use their skills effectively and find their best fit in the world. As we do this, people see a world of hope where their children will survive and help each other, educate each other, empower each other. All this leads to people making better choices; for leadership, for their environment, for their future. It leads to wise choices about governments instead of feeling a need to tear them down. We can do this on the world scale, bringing appropriate technology where it is needed, as well as across the table from each other, listening intently, and teaching instead of fighting.
JohnH - 24 June 2017 03:40 PM The universe is the One. As such I am a part of the one, along with everything else and collectively, everything is the One.Same answer. If you read my reply you will notice that I also included everything as part of the Wholeness. "The One" is misleading. It implies a personal entity. "The Wholeness" is a neutral description of All there is, not The One, IMO. You may see this as semantics, but the implied meanings are different.
the one. DEFINITION; a person's destined life partner: "it sounds corny, but I think he's the one"
Wholeness, noun. 8. the whole assemblage of parts or elements belonging to a thing; the entire quantity, account, extent, or number: He accepted some of the parts but rejected the whole. 9. a thing complete in itself, or comprising all its parts or elements. 10. an assemblage of parts associated or viewed together as one thing; a unitary system.You see the implied difference?
The reason for caring for others is that others cared for us.I'm not sure that motivates everyone - and certainly not everything, (and humans aren't the only species that help each other). There is still the vexing question that you don't need to reciprocate to receive help. However, you could argue that it is indirectly true because one evolutionary criterion for fitness can be caring for each other. Cooperation may be another way to put it and directs thoughts towards how much more a group of cooperating individuals can accomplish relative to an isolated individual. Cooperation is a well recognized feature of evolution (e.g. - https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3279745/#__ffn_sectitle - Five rules for the evolution of cooperation by Martin A. Nowak) although you'd hardly recognize it with the almost singleminded focus on violence and competition, even in so-called documentaries on nature - "red in tooth and claw". If cooperation is a desirable trait, you'd expect at least some species to cooperate - as so many do.
As we expand who we help, who we educate, more people will be able to use their skills effectively and find their best fit in the world. As we do this, people see a world of hope where their children will survive and help each other, educate each other, empower each other.That makes sense to me and is a small part of what we may consider to be behaving responsibly. Another list of ways to care would encompass the behaviors we may call moral. Morality is about treating others well and discouraging maltreatment which likely contribute to a stable and productive society. A thriving society rather than one that merely 'survives'. Evolution has resulted in genetically controlled brain wiring to perform a myriad of different functions. Is it not possible that our brain wiring also evolved to express morality because morality expresses functions that improve our ability to integrate into a more complex world that improves our abilities to survive and thrive? Evolution is about so much more than the popular notion of fighting for survival. There are better ways to evolve. We found them but largely fail to acknowledge them. Know it or not, we are moral because our brains are wired that way.
You mean something like this. My favorite hominid.
Bonobo Chimpanzee, Published on Jun 16, 2014 Bonobos are the only ape that doesn't kill. And unlike any other ape, bonobos help each other out (a lot like humans do). Through the use of "bonobo TV," researchers found that bonobos' yawns are contagious (also like humans). But while they have humanlike traits, their biggest threat comes from humans. ➡ Subscribe: http://bit.ly/NatGeoSubscribehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sN-Hj73ES2U
John,
If you’re going to address moral issues, I think you’re inevitably going to find yourself heading back towards religion, or at least some other ideology.
You labeled yourself as “Non-religious but spiritual”.
Is it your intent to move from religion to some other ideology?
Or to move from religion to spirituality? I’m defining “spirituality” as experience, and not interpretations of experience. Others will have their own definitions of course. How do you define it?
John, If you're going to address moral issues, I think you're inevitably going to find yourself heading back towards religion, or at least some other ideology.??I suppose you could call evolution an ideology. Are you suggesting that morality can only be a result of religion? Are we (and other creatures) moral? If we are, where did that morality come from? What is religious or spiritual about...
Is it not possible that our brain wiring also evolved to express morality because morality expresses functions that improve our ability to integrate into a more complex world that improves our abilities to survive and thrive?
Is it your intent to move from religion to some other ideology?If evolution is an ideology, yes.
Or to move from religion to spirituality? I'm defining "spirituality" as experience, and not interpretations of experience. Others will have their own definitions of course.??From religion to experience? Insofar as our understanding of evolution can be called experience.
How do you define it?Last paragraph of post 21 - http://www.centerforinquiry.net/forums/viewreply/233524/ Spam antibody
Are you suggesting that morality can only be a result of religion?No, not at all. Only that any moral system will be designed in the realm of ideas. That doesn't make it bad necessarily, but is that spirituality?
Is it your intent to move from religion to some other ideology?
If evolution is an ideology, yes.Ok, thanks. My point would be that every ideology ever invented has come in to conflict with other ideologies, and more telling, also sub-divided in to internal warring factions. So even if an ideology is not religious, many of the same objectionable phenomena will present themselves. As example, some hard core atheists seem just as nutty as the hard core religious, and the fact that their ideologies are polar opposites seems not to matter.
From religion to experience?Right. Religion is generally talk about experience. Jesus went in to the desert and had some experience. And then Jesus and lots of people started interpreting that experience, arguing about it, etc. "Religion to experience" might involve going in to the desert, having the experience, and then valuing the experience for itself, setting aside the process of interpretation. If an experience is "nutritious", who cares what it's called or what it means etc? As example here might be food. It's value does not depend on labels, analysis, interpretation etc.
Are you suggesting that morality can only be a result of religion?No, not at all. Only that any moral system will be designed in the realm of ideas. That doesn't make it bad necessarily, but is that spirituality?Morality wasn't designed, it evolved. Ideas (memes) can offer 'designs' up for natural selection and that can supplement selection of genetic traits for morality but the basis for moral behavior across the animal kingdom is without doubt genetic. Before corruption of the word meme by social media, it had quite a different meaning and gave rise to the academic discipline of memetics - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meme. Don't be hung up on 'spiritual'. It was a label I used to help people who need to have labels. Much like colors on a color chart, it has many shades which I attempted to clarify in the OP and other posts which may not have been read.
Don't be hung up on 'spiritual'.I'm attempting to better understand what you mean by that word, and perhaps help you better understand as well in the process.
Don't be hung up on 'spiritual'.I'm attempting to better understand what you mean by that word, and perhaps help you better understand as well in the process.Maybe I don't need to understand...
If an experience is “nutritious", who cares what it’s called or what it means etc?Apparently, you do? As for the experience, I suggested you read post 21 of this thread. I noted and corrected an error introduced by the pesky autocorrect on my tablet. In case you can't backtrack, here it is again..
The processes that brought about this world we live in are awe-inspiring to me and go so far beyond the capabilities of humankind and even what most of humankind can comprehend that such awe becomes “spiritual". Not because it involves magic or supernatural but simply because it is so far beyond present human capabilities.What don't you understand about this?
What don't you understand about this?Why you are using the word "spiritual". But, never mind, proceed as you wish.
Don't be hung up on 'spiritual'.I'm attempting to better understand what you mean by that word, and perhaps help you better understand as well in the process. Some people seem to understand. - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6RjW5-4IiSc. "Given the chemistry of it all, and the nuclear physics of it all, not only we are in the Universe, the Universe is in us and I don't know any deeper spiritual feeling than what that brings upon us." Neil DeGrasse Tyson.
"Given the chemistry of it all, and the nuclear physics of it all, not only we are in the Universe, the Universe is in us and I don't know any deeper spiritual feeling than what that brings upon us." Neil DeGrasse Tyson.Why is that feeling "spiritual" instead of "awesome", "incredible", "inspiring" etc?
Mimetics,
Etymology
The word meme is a shortening (modeled on gene) of mimeme (from Ancient Greek μίμημα pronounced [mímɛma] mīmēma, “imitated thing”, from μιμεῖσθαι mimeisthai, “to imitate”, from μῖμος mimos, “mime”)[13] coined by British evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins in The Selfish Gene (1976)[3][14] as a concept for discussion of evolutionary principles in explaining the spread of ideas and cultural phenomena. Examples of memes given in the book included melodies, catchphrases, fashion, and the technology of building arches.[15] Kenneth Pike coined the related term emic and etic, generalizing the linguistic idea of phoneme, morpheme, grapheme, lexeme and tagmeme (as set out by Leonard Bloomfield), characterizing them as insider view and outside view of behaviour and extending the concept into a tagmemic theory of human behaviour (culminating in Language in Relation to a Unified Theory of the Structure of Human Behaviour, 1954).
IMO the seat of “memes” can be found in the “mirror neuron system” which allows us to mirror the experience of other people or patterns in nature.
Thus there is no transfer of information in the spiritual sense, but is the result of reflexive chemical reactions by observation of previously experienced environmental behaviors, whether they be human or natural. The experience itself is called “empathy”.
Perhaps a good example can be found in Astrology, which is based on certain observable patterns in the universe and from which a person’s fundamental characteristics supposedly can be devined if they are born under a specific cosmological pattern.
I was born on the cusp of Aquarius and Capricorn, and indeed I exhibit some characteristics associated with those patterns. But I have two brothers and a sister who exhibit the same characteristics, but were born under completely different signs. So where is the spiritual connection to astrological signs?
The answer of course is that we all grew up in the same family environment and our characteristic behaviors are learned from exposure to our parents behaviors, which have become imprinted in our neuron mirror system and has caused a common empathic response behavior.
Is this a sign that my family is spiritually connected?
This is great
This is greatWelcome Marc, as administrator. Your first post is encouraging to laymen such as myself and encourages me to delve deeper into the mysteries of the universe and life itself.