Do you consider yourself spiritual?

[Tricky]

It is important not to let the fools define all of our terms.

I think it is equally important not to accept the fools' terms. Spiritual at some level must involve spirits. It is the root of the word. If you say "yes, so long as you accept that spirits don't actually have to be spirits" then you are simply accepting their rules. I think this is wrong. Let THEM define what they mean by spiritual, and then you can say whether or not you agree that what you believe is aligned with those definitions.

 

[bjornart]

If spiritual means "having a deep appreciation for the beauty and complexity of life, the universe, and everything," then yes. If it means "prone to belief in, and promotion of, a cobbled-together collection of irrational, unprovable concepts and soundbytes of feel-good philosophy" (which, in my experience, is what it tends to mean in practice), then no.

What he said. And 42.

 

[XLDS03]

No. The way in which I grew up spirituality was the antithesis of measurable reality. Spirituality was the margin of human ignorance wherein the holy priesthood operates, so of course I left the religion. I don't believe in that which by definition cannot be evident. Although it took some time for me to try every tool in my flawed toolkit of woo.

If the soul were to be imperically measured we would call it science. If that were to happen, a good many spiritualists, I suspect, would have some major explaining to do to their audiences. Given that we have modern advances in the sciences, like neurology, I think that day may already be upon us.

Andy

 

[Tricky]

No. The way in which I grew up spirituality was the antithesis of measurable reality. Spirituality was the margin of human ignorance wherein the holy priesthood operates, so of course I left the religion. I don't believe in that which by definition cannot be evident. Although it took some time for me to try every tool in my flawed toolkit of woo.

If the soul were to be empirically measured we would call it science. If that were to happen, a good many spiritualists, I suspect, would have some major explaining to do to their audiences. Given that we have modern advances in the sciences, like neurology, I think that day may already be upon us.

Andy

You are correct. And a great deal of what had, for many years, been described as "soul" has already been empirically measured by science. We can map certain emotions and mental actions to specific parts of the brain. We can find chemical correlates for some of the (many) things that we call "love". Each day, science chips away at the magic puzzle box that contains what people call the soul. And what we find is that the box is not magic. It is one hell of a puzzle box, but it is all put together with the same materials that everything else is put together with.

To some, it ruins things because the puzzle box is not magic. To others, it makes it more intriguing and challenging. I count myself in the latter group.

***
ETA:
Oh, and welcome to the forum XLDS03. I can see you will be a valued addition here.

 

[Nogbad]

I'm a git - does that count?

 

[JoeEllison]

I'm an atheist, and I'm not spiritual...


... I'm soulful, baby.

 

[Tricky]

I'm a git - does that count?

No.

And by the way, your face is on fire.

 

[Nogbad]

No.

And by the way, your face is on fire.

Bugger!

I find the flame illuminates my way amongst the gloom of Woo....bit drastic come to think of it

 

[Tricky]

Bugger!

I find the flame illuminates my way amongst the gloom of Woo....bit drastic come to think of it

Whew! You ARE drugs.

 

[Igopogo]

I think it is equally important not to accept the fools' terms. Spiritual at some level must involve spirits. It is the root of the word. If you say "yes, so long as you accept that spirits don't actually have to be spirits" then you are simply accepting their rules. I think this is wrong. Let THEM define what they mean by spiritual, and then you can say whether or not you agree that what you believe is aligned with those definitions.

I call myself 'spiritual' without any connotation of 'supernatural' what-so ever. The word 'spirit' can still be defined at times without referring to ghosts and such, (like in 'team spirit'...). I think it's important to define what you're talking about when you discuss something, or you're not really discussing anything at all. (That's why when someone wants to discuss 'God' or 'christianity' with me, I first ask them how they define what we are to discuss).

Why do I call myself 'spiritual' instead of (or as well as) 'agnostic'? - because I acknowledge that it's the honest way to describe how I relate to my belief system (or lack there-of). As much as love science, to me it's not an emotionless, clinical analysis of facts, but the enjoyment of discovery. When someone puts forth an inspiring and perceptive observation on reality, I’m as ecstatic as I am when listening to great music. To pretend that to understand scientific investigation, you have to be a Mr. Spock or an automaton to me is baloney. (I’ve met people like that, and I find some of the stuff they believe to be just as crazy as religious nuts). To me it’s important that we recognize that curiosity and proper discovery is a proper balance of ‘logic’ and ‘emotion’.

Science without emotion lacks empathy, which can lead one to a clearly fictional relationship to reality. ‘Spiritual’ feelings (for sake of a better word), without skepticism and logic also leads to a clearly fictional relationship to reality.

 

[Tricky]

Science without emotion lacks empathy, which can lead one to a clearly fictional relationship to reality. ‘Spiritual’ feelings (for sake of a better word), without skepticism and logic also leads to a clearly fictional relationship to reality.

Science, by its nature must be without emotion. Scientists, of course, being human are incapable of being emotionless. But the data, the evidence, the facts, the process, those are (or should be) immune to emotion. This is why places like the Discovery Institute are not doing real science. They have an emotional stake in the outcome. They cannot divorce the science from their emotions.

BTW. Igopogo too. I miss ol' Walt.

 

[XLDS03]

You are correct. And a great deal of what had, for many years, been described as "soul" has already been empirically measured by science. We can map certain emotions and mental actions to specific parts of the brain. We can find chemical correlates for some of the (many) things that we call "love". Each day, science chips away at the magic puzzle box that contains what people call the soul. And what we find is that the box is not magic. It is one hell of a puzzle box, but it is all put together with the same materials that everything else is put together with.

Seeing Michael Shermer having a magnetically induced OBE at Laurentian University doesn't give much hope to the credibility of an external source for these occurences. It makes me wonder as I've never experienced an OBE, and I've tried! Anything spiritual I thought I was experiencing I had to strain to experience. Even then I could only "feel" someone and imagine what they'd look like. I get the same feelings, if you will, of presences standing in the same spots at home and at work. My imagination might start running away with me sometimes, just for fun. But these spots are parts of walls that more likely bounce sound off a bit muffled compared to the surrounding area sounding as though a body is standing there. It also helps not to be surrounded by people claiming spiritual occurences. It's like campfire stories; you don't want to be left out.

Without being immersed in groups like that I simply don't have spiritual experiences. I've done some, in hindsight, looney things for proof with little success. I suppose I'm not genetically hardwired for abstract, ethereal experiences like that. I do think I'm hardwired with a kind of obsessiveness to find answers, so I think that's the connection why I got so deep into woo.

To some, it ruins things because the puzzle box is not magic. To others, it makes it more intriguing and challenging. I count myself in the latter group.

I see it as little more than a power-play, actually. The scientific process and those who employ it have taken the power to conjure truth from the priests and mystics. Not only has that power been taken away, but it's become more difficult to earn. In the Valley of Woo all you really need is a home computer, the internet, and a spirit guide with the gift of gab. In science, you kind of need a wee bit more than a writing apparatus and an over-active imagination. I count myself in the latter group, as well, because I'm willing to earn knowledge.

Oh, and thanks for the welcome!

Andy

 

[Kopji]

I know I'm not supposed to break the rules and look it up in the dictionary, but the etymology of spirit is

from the Latin spiritualis, from Latin, of breathing, of wind, from spiritus

or

Definition #3: ...concerned with religious values

m-w online

If I were to make an idle and meaningless human observation, which I am entirely prone to do... I'd guess that atheists who have always been atheist are less comfortable with using the word 'spiritual' for Quinn's description, and those of us who arrived here in more of an evolutionary process are more accepting. Labels are a bit like clothes and become more comfortable to wear over time.

I ams what I ams - Popeye, and possibly Rambo

 

[Igopogo]

Science, by its nature must be without emotion. Scientists, of course, being human are incapable of being emotionless. But the data, the evidence, the facts, the process, those are (or should be) immune to emotion. This is why places like the Discovery Institute are not doing real science. They have an emotional stake in the outcome. They cannot divorce the science from their emotions.

BTW. Igopogo too. I miss ol' Walt.

Yes, I agree, but there's a different aspect of emotion that I'm getting at, (which is what I'm referring to with emotions and facts in 'proper balance'. Sometimes what we would describe as brilliant 'science' is nothing of the sort, but a meandering speculation around the facts we perceive. It's a creative, inventive venture, that if you remove the human emotion quotient entirely from the equation, these discoveries would be impossible.

BTW, I miss ol' Walt too, especially in US election years.

 

[PrincessIneffabelle]

Lemme check ...




... nope, no spiritual feelings here. I got some reason, instinct, and reaction in stock, and a job-lot on the emotion, but I'm spang out of spiritual.

 

[EeneyMinnieMoe]

No, I'm not "spiritual". Quite frankly, I don't even know what the word is supposed to mean, besides "I'm a narcissistic and flakey New Age wacko" or "I'm a liberal Christian".

As a matter of fact, even when I was quite religious, I wouldn't have called myself "spiritual".

 

[XLDS03]

Igopogo, the lack of universal definition with spiritualists is aggravating even for a believer! I agree fully about finding a definition to discuss. I think I understand what you're saying about recognizing the same emotions you'd feel in regards to spirituality without the necessity for a supernatural cause. I agree. Those same emotions are still there even without deity.

Your words here:

Science without emotion lacks empathy, which can lead one to a clearly fictional relationship to reality.

I don't think I understand. It reminds me of the excuses people used to disregard Isaac Newton's clockwork universe, it lacked aesthetic beauty and appeal, but I don't imagine that this is what you're saying.

Andy

P.S. How do you do that "Originally posted by..." thing? I've never figured that out.

 

[XLDS03]

Igopogo, please disregard my last part as you clarified yourself while I was typing. lol

I can understand what you're saying about the underlying intuition that precedes discovery. The ability to ask good questions, say.

Last part was added, I think I'm supposed to note. Let me recheck my welcoming PM.

Andy

 

[Tricky]

P.S. How do you do that "Originally posted by..." thing? I've never figured that out.

If you click on the QUOTE button

you will get a "reply" window with the text of the person you are quoting enclosed in quote boxes.

You can also type {quote=anybody I feel like quoting} <paste in quote> {/quote} (but with square brackets instead of curly brackets) and get the poster's name inserted. You can even do it for people who aren't posters here, like this:

Bite my ass, Buffalo Bob

If you want to see a post in full html format while editing it, click the

button and it will show you all the code.

 

[value_relevance]

I took magic mushrooms a few years back and its hard to describe that experience in any other term than 'spiritual'. Not I think it actually involved spirits or any kind of hocus pocus. It was an awe inspiring shift in my consciousness. Maybe the word spiritual (though it is essentially a nonsense word) can be applied to experiences that baffles rational judgement.
Dawkins cleverly hijacked the word religious to descibe his own profound love of nature, maybe we can hijack the word spiritual and unburden it from the connotations of a crystal balls and ectoplasm.