OUR TWO WORLDS, SPIRITUAL AND MATERIAL
Sections 2 and 3 have been added to “Futile Confrontations” at:
http://pages.csam.montclair.edu/~kow...o/atheist.html
Comments will be appreciated, Thank you in advance,
Ludwik
.
Sorry, I don’t plan to waste my time since I have never seen any evidence of a “spiritual world”. I see plenty of evidence for our four dimensional (including time) universe, and recognize that multidimensionality is a good possibility everything I’ve seen related to spirituality is fairytale without substance.
Occam
Sorry, I don't plan to waste my time since I have never seen any evidence of a "spiritual world". I see plenty of evidence for our four dimensional (including time) universe, and recognize that multidimensionality is a good possibility everything I've seen related to spirituality is fairytale without substance. OccamThe term spirituality applies (in my usage) to what motivated terrorists responsible for the 9/11 attack on the Trade Center in NY. They believed that they were serving God; they preyed for the maximum number of victims. Ludwik . http://csam.montclair.edu/~kowalski/life/intro.html
Sorry, I don't plan to waste my time since I have never seen any evidence of a "spiritual world". I see plenty of evidence for our four dimensional (including time) universe, and recognize that multidimensionality is a good possibility everything I've seen related to spirituality is fairytale without substance. OccamThe term spirituality applies (in my usage) to what motivated terrorists responsible for the 9/11 attack on the Trade Center in NY. They believed that they were serving God; they preyed for the maximum number of victims. Ludwik . http://csam.montclair.edu/~kowalski/life/intro.html That's the best definition of spirituality I've ever heard. I teceived an error message when I clicked on your link. Lois
Sorry, but when you decide to define a word differently from the common usage, you severely degrade the meaningfullness and intellegiblity of your writing. Two possible words that come to mind and fit your description are “emotional” and “irrational”. I’d guess that if you checked a thesaurus, you could come up with at least a half dozen words the match your meaning without introducing the metaphysical bias of “spiritual”.
Occam
Sorry, but when you decide to define a word differently from the common usage, you severely degrade the meaningfullness and intellegiblity of your writing. Two possible words that come to mind and fit your description are "emotional" and "irrational". I'd guess that if you checked a thesaurus, you could come up with at least a half dozen words the match your meaning without introducing the metaphysical bias of "spiritual". OccamI did not try to define the term "spirituality." I only gave an example. Spirituality often motivates people to do good things. Spiritual world consists of non-material entities, such as Gods and angels. My introduction to this world was unusual. I am still learning and trying to be consistent. That is why the NOMA approach is attractive to me. What else can also help us to reduce the intensity of dangerous conflicts between believers and non believers? Ludwik .
Sorry, but one of the better ways of defining a word or concept is to “give an example”. Even if you didn’t mean to do so, your example is essentially a definition.
Occam
The term spirituality applies (in my usage) to what motivated terrorists responsible for the 9/11 attack on the Trade Center in NY. They believed that they were serving God; they preyed for the maximum number of victims.Another war of the words. But I never saw spirituality defined as 'serving God' and that it could serve as motivation to kill thousands of people. It also does not fit with many atheists and materialists calling themselves spiritual. Spirituality stands for the striving for the realisation that we are all part of this one universe. Hardly a motivation for killing innocents.
Spiritual world consists of non-material entities, such as Gods and angels.Spirituality has nothing to do with spirits, gods or whatever. It is an attitude towards the universe as you belief it factually is, be it a theistic, deistic or materialist world view. That also means there are no 'two worlds' in a true spiritual view. There is just the one we live in, and therefore have to live with. And yes, your link is wrong. It should be: http://pages.csam.montclair.edu/~kowalski/theo/atheist.html
I agree with GdB. That is not a commonly held understanding of spirituality, in fact it’s quite the opposite of spirituality. And it certainly isn’t a good definition just because it leads to a horrific outcome, as Lois would have it, displaying her irrational approach to language yet again.
Whether anyone accepts the example of spirituality or not, it IS exactly the phenomenon that drove the WTC bombers to attack. They were doing it for their god.
Whether anyone accepts the example of spirituality or not, it IS exactly the phenomenon that drove the WTC bombers to attack. They were doing it for their god.That is not so sure. See the What drives suicidal mass killers]? thread.
Whether anyone accepts the example of spirituality or not, it IS exactly the phenomenon that drove the WTC bombers to attack. They were doing it for their god.That is not so sure. See the What drives suicidal mass killers]? thread. Well, you can always find a way to take belief out of the equation if you try hard enough. But ask the families of the people who died in the WTC if they think the bombers were poor hapless victims of their religion. However you look at it, they were driven by belief, just as most suicide bombers and mass murderers are. Even the people who kill abortion doctors in cold blood could be seen as poor hapless victims of their belief systems. How about segregationists who burned down churches full of people and engaged in lynching? We are left with the same question. How do we as a society respond to such actions? Do we leave religion out of it and pretend it isn't a motivating factor just because it makes some people uncomfortable to think of belief (or spirituality or whatever you want to call it) in that way? Do we give everyone who is motivated by religion to engage in inhuman acts a free pass by pretending that it can't be belief that's behind it. Or do we stop pussyfooting around for fear someone's feelings might get hurt and focus on what it is about belief that drives people to do such things?
Spirituality is pretty much universally seen as a form of harmony, often called connectedness. The WTC bombers do not meet that criterion, to say the least. Very few people would think of or characterize their actions as spiritual.
I agree that few would characterize Moslem terrorist actions as spiritual, but I think many would accept the idea of them being spiritually driven. The problem isn’t with the definition; rather that most people are religious (theistic if that suits you better) and automatically accept spiritual as positive so don’t connect it with a negative action. I believe most Christians would admit (grudgingly) that the Spanish Inquisition was based on spiritual beliefs but not “a form of harmony”.
Occam
I agree that few would characterize Moslem terrorist actions as spiritual, but I think many would accept the idea of them being spiritually driven. The problem isn't with the definition; rather that most people are religious (theistic if that suits you better) and automatically accept spiritual as positive so don't connect it with a negative action. I believe most Christians would admit (grudgingly) that the Spanish Inquisition was based on spiritual beliefs but not "a form of harmony". OccamThe evidence is sparse either for or against those propositions. I Googled "Muslim" and "Inquisition," in separate searches, along with spirituality and found very little. The links I did find don't appear to support any clear conclusion. http://www.faithfreedom.org/oped/sina50413.htm (8th paragraph to the end) http://www.internationalwallofprayer.org/A-052-Why-Islamic-Terrorists-Do-What-They-Do-Dr-Mark-Gabriel.html http://theamericanmuslim.org/tam.php/tam/categories/C167 (someone named Sheila Musaji has some interestingly titled pieces - she seems most attuned to an idea of spirituality: see, for example, http://theamericanmuslim.org/tam.php/features/articles/religious_terrorism and http://theamericanmuslim.org/tam.php/features/articles/a_spiritual_jihad_against_terrorism_part_i ) http://www.mtc.org/inquis.html (Here's a fellow who uses the word "spiritual" in a way some secularists love to hate.) On the opposite side of the coin, see http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/ellerbe0.htm . Here's another take on it. Superficially, some of us might agree with this implied definition of spirituality but then look at the source. http://www.cuttingedge.org/News/n1676.cfm What I don't understand, Occam, is your final sentence, in the context of your post. Given the nature of this subject matter and the observations in your first two sentences, why would anyone be in a position of having to "admit" that "spiritual beliefs" must be seen (if only grudgingly) to include beliefs that would lead to an Inquisition? I think Musaji's articles state the better view: that such beliefs are opposed to spirituality. In the end, I ask the same question I asked you on another topic: So what? What does this all mean for us, and in particular about how we go forward individually and together?
What I don't understand, Occam, is your final sentence, in the context of your post. Given the nature of this subject matter and the observations in your first two sentences, why would anyone be in a position of having to "admit" that "spiritual beliefs" must be seen (if only grudgingly) to include beliefs that would lead to an Inquisition?I think you're really twisting this one PLaClair. It seems obvious to me. The leaders of the Inquisition claimed they were doing their work for God. It was their spiritual beliefs that motivated them. They claim the same connection to Christ that a soccer mom in the suburbs claims today, but they were in a position to take that belief and do something with it that no one could in a democratic society. So soccer mom is a position of either agreeing a major part of her own church tradition was horribly wrong or admitting that spiritual beliefs can lead to the desire to torture non-believers. I have had forum chats with people about Christians in Africa that support their country's death penalty for homosexuals. They admit that if they are sticking to their literal interpretation of the Bible, those Africans are following their spiritual beliefs correctly. They usually make this admission grudgingly.
I agree that few would characterize Moslem terrorist actions as spiritual, but I think many would accept the idea of them being spiritually driven. The problem isn't with the definition; rather that most people are religious (theistic if that suits you better) and automatically accept spiritual as positive so don't connect it with a negative action. I believe most Christians would admit (grudgingly) that the Spanish Inquisition was based on spiritual beliefs but not "a form of harmony". OccamPart of the problem is that there is no definition of "spritual" that most people accept. It can mean anything anyone wants it to mean. It can mean religion, or faith, or belief in the supernatural or just a woo-woo feeling nobody can explain the cause of. That's the reason I don't like to use the word. When someone says he's "spiritual" nobody can know what the person means by it. By certain definitions of spiritual, it can be seen as a motivating factor in terrorist acts. The terrorists believe in a god and they believe that god wants them to defend that belief by any means possible, even mass murder. I call that spirituality. I define spirituality as belief in the supernatural, no matter what that entails. A belief in any god is spirituality. If others have different definitions, I wish they would post them and explain them.
I define spirituality as belief in the supernatural, no matter what that entails. A belief in any god is spirituality. If others have different definitions, I wish they would post them and explain them.I could be sitting on top of a mountain and watching the sunset listening to some classical music. While doing that I could reflect upon myself being comprised of the same elemental particles that the rest of the Universe is comprised of. And how my particles came together in a natural process that is highly rare in the context of the universe, and how my particles will revert to the same state that they originally came from. In other words my parents ate food that provided the particles to create me. I became me. Then I will eventually revert back to food again essentially. So listening to Strauss on the top of a mountain contemplating that while watching the sunset, I could call that spiritual. Definitely.
What I don't understand, Occam, is your final sentence, in the context of your post. Given the nature of this subject matter and the observations in your first two sentences, why would anyone be in a position of having to "admit" that "spiritual beliefs" must be seen (if only grudgingly) to include beliefs that would lead to an Inquisition?I think you're really twisting this one PLaClair. It seems obvious to me. The leaders of the Inquisition claimed they were doing their work for God. It was their spiritual beliefs that motivated them. They claim the same connection to Christ that a soccer mom in the suburbs claims today, but they were in a position to take that belief and do something with it that no one could in a democratic society. So soccer mom is a position of either agreeing a major part of her own church tradition was horribly wrong or admitting that spiritual beliefs can lead to the desire to torture non-believers. I have had forum chats with people about Christians in Africa that support their country's death penalty for homosexuals. They admit that if they are sticking to their literal interpretation of the Bible, those Africans are following their spiritual beliefs correctly. They usually make this admission grudgingly. I'm not twisting, only defining spirituality in a particular way, which I've already explained a few times (to answer Lois' request): integration within and without (wholeness and connectedness, respectively) and a heightened sense of vitality. So the ideal spiritual state might be summarized as "being exuberantly at one with everything." By that definition, something is not spiritual just because it conforms to someone's conception of God or religion; on the contrary, if that conception of God or religion doesn't meet the criteria, then that conception is not spiritual within that understanding of the terms. So while Inquisition leaders might call their activities spiritual, I would not. I would argue to them that their way is divisive, which is an opposite of spiritual. That is why - going back to Occam's comment - a person wouldn't have to "admit" that someone else's idea of God or religion is spiritual. I was questioning his assumption. "Why do that?" you might ask. I'll answer that question with Gene Roddenberry's response to someone who gave him advice about his Star Trek series. He replied "No, this is my vision." Roddenberry wasn't pushing or dictating to people; he was offering a vision in which people of color had a future, people were treated fairly, people were inquisitive, etc. I have a conception of and vision for spirituality and religion. I think they work. They work for me. Others agree with that vision. Those are the people I want to work with to offer this vision to others. Those who are left flat by this vision don't have to join. But this is my vision, and I say that there are some conceptions of God and religion that are not only not spiritual; they're anti-spiritual and/or are impediments to spirituality. Others are free to see it differently but that is how I see it, and I am far from alone.