Does materialism preclude spirituality?

[Ichneumonwasp]

Perhaps a separate term could be introduced here to clarify positions?

The sense of awe and wonder seems to fit under reverence. Reverence is an aspect that I think no one would like to live without. One can be reverent of the universe as a whole, of Being, of God, whatever.

Spirituality partakes in reverence but reverence needn't partake of spirituality. My understanding of spirituality, as Mercutio seems to be using the term, is very similar to his understanding of it. It requires a world behind the world, supernaturalism, or something of that ilk. Reverence, on the other hand, requires none of that viewpoint.

 

[Davidjayjordan]

Billy, Biblically speaking materialism is the arch enemy of the spirit in its upper levels. Nevertheless the right wing patriotic church system loves materialism and promotes it, and thinks it shows godliness.

They consider their richer tithing memebers more holy because they have more wealth. Its insane, as jesus never taught it just the reverse.

A few of the Biblical figures were sucessful but they seemed to use it for good, whereas continued wealth for selfness pride sake can hardly be deemed godly or spiritual. The Lord didnt accumulate wealth nor even have a house even though being the Creator Himself, and asked his disciples to literally give up all for His kingdom sake and he would reward them in other ways.

And obviously I can;t go into the materialistic whore of Babylon, and her cup of inquity vecause it is not sex but fornication for money and worldly power

 

[Mercutio]

Um...different "materialism".

 

[DogBoy]

The sense of awe and wonder seems to fit under reverence... pirituality... requires a world behind the world, supernaturalism, or something of that ilk. Reverence, on the other hand, requires none of that viewpoint.

Well... I agree that spirituality and reverence are different, but I am not sure that spirituality commits one to literal beliefs which conflict with rational materialism. How can a world beyond the (material) world conflict with the material world? "Beyond the material world" surely means that truths about the divine aren't directly comparable with truths about the physical world. Spiritual things don't have to "exist" in the same sense that physical things exist; if they did, they would be physical, rather than spiritual, things!

Spirituality isn't necessarily superstition and it isn't identical with reverence either. I would rather describe it as (a commitment to) a way of seeing the world incorporating ideas which are specifically conducive to so-called "peak experiences", and to compassion and personal tranquility. Some people use those ideas as powerful life-changing metaphors, and some people take them more literally. The literal interpretation is what leads to supernaturalism.

Zen Buddhism seems to be a spiritual tradition in which there is little or no supernaturalism, although I am aware of mystical writing in Jewish, Christian, Muslim and Hindu traditions which seem to express strikingly similar sentiments to the Zen masters, within the conventional language of their respective religions.

 

[Mercutio]

Seems to me that what you are describing there, DogBoy, is not materialism but dualism.

Thank you for illustrating my point!

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

Spirituality isn't necessarily superstition and it isn't identical with reverence either. I would rather describe it as (a commitment to) a way of seeing the world incorporating ideas which are specifically conducive to so-called "peak experiences", and to compassion and personal tranquility. Some people use those ideas as powerful life-changing metaphors, and some people take them more literally. The literal interpretation is what leads to supernaturalism.

Zen Buddhism seems to be a spiritual tradition in which there is little or no supernaturalism, although I am aware of mystical writing in Jewish, Christian, Muslim and Hindu traditions which seem to express strikingly similar sentiments to the Zen masters, within the conventional language of their respective religions.

Leaving aside the issue of a realm that doesn't necessarily exist, those other qualities that you have outlined fit within the "passions". What I have personally found in most discussions with others on this topic and on topics concerning philosophy of mind (yes, the "c" word) is that we are struck with "mystery", but this mystery (or "heart" as others deem it) also fits under the umbrella of "the passions", or a complex of emotion, sensation, etc. -- feelings for want of a better term. We simply do not have a good account of the "passions" as of yet, so they seem very mysterious. It may be, however, that the passions can be explained by simple mechanical, deterministic forces. This will not change the fact that we feel them, and no objective science of the passions will ever replace those feelings. That doesn't bother me, though, since an objective account of running doesn't replace running either. As I'm sure you well know plague was considered a visitation by the wrath of the gods before Yersinia pestis was identified.

One way of looking at spirituality is to consider it one of the passions, and discussions of what this means depend on one's underlying assumptions. In the West we tend to view the divine as "other", as a separate being (which requires a world behind this world). Not all religious traditions, as you so rightly point out do this, however. In many Eastern views there is no separation of what we call the material and the divine -- they are co"exist"ent. I completely sympathize with the view but still have a difficult time fully conceptualizing it (which may be the problem, since full conceptualization seems to be the big roadblock in Zen).

 

[Beerina]

we are struck with "mystery", but this mystery (or "heart" as others deem it) also fits under the umbrella of "the passions", or a complex of emotion, sensation, etc. -- feelings for want of a better term. We simply do not have a good account of the "passions" as of yet, so they seem very mysterious. It may be, however, that the passions can be explained by simple mechanical, deterministic forces.

Exactly. Passions, or if you want to call it consciousness, or the subjective perceptual experience, or the pre-reflective cogito, are a definite phenomena that is experienced. As such, it definitely exists. And therefore it has an explanation that must be grounded in some kind of physics. We know even a full "theory of eveything" would still be lacking if it could not account for this aspect of reality.

We have good reason to believe consciousness arises, somehow, out of matter "out there", but the details are sorely lacking at this point.

Francis Crick, et al., argue the time is ripe to stop philosophizing about it and to start gathering as much info as possible about the "NCC", the Neural Correlates of Consciousness -- the activities in the brain that appear to be associated with thinking thoughts and experiencing...experiences. Only once that is well done can we begin to draw theories on how consciousness arises out of inanimate matter.

In the realm of Artificial Intelligence, "zombie-like" intelligence is generally believed to be possible, i.e. intelligence without consciousness, but whether consciousness arises out of "stuff", or is an "emergent property" of information flow divides them into two camps. On the one hand, one could theoretically swap neurons for electronic devices, or buckets and chutes of water, for that matter, and still retain brain functionality as pure information flow. But at this point you are stuck with an apparent contradiction: Obviously such a "bucket-based" brain must be conscious; yet it might very well not be because it is not made of the same atomic structures as a brain. Searle points this out quite clearly -- consciousness must arise as a physical process, and a bunch of buckets looks nothing like a bunch of neurons on a physical level.

And there we sit for the moment.

 

[billydkid]

Searle points this out quite clearly -- consciousness must arise as a physical process, and a bunch of buckets looks nothing like a bunch of neurons on a physical level.

And there we sit for the moment.

I would argue that those physical processes are so complex and intricately woven that they are, practically, the equivalent of magical. It may be that the mind can come to be fully understood in it's intricacies, but I seriously doubt it. Theoretically, physical processes can certainly all be understood, but I think there is a level of complexity in the vast tapestry of interactions that constitute a mind that renders any notion of fully understanding them as not even close to realistic. Doesn't mean we shouldn't try or that it isn't fun and interesting and worthwhile to do so, but we would be kidding ourselves to believe we could truly comprehend the mind. I could be wrong.

And, to my mind, this renders the mind, essentially, magical and makes talk of spirituality and transcendence useful and meaningful. I would also hold, even if we could understand all the mechanisms which would constitute mind - the whole is vastly greater than the sum of its parts. I think there is impenetrable mystery in the world and in ourselves. Simply knowing that this mystery is an emergent property of physical processes in no way diminishes the depth of or alters the "magical" character of that mystery.

 

[Dancing David]

Well, ok, but I am not getting the connection between what you are saying and anything I wrote.

They support your statement

Yes, they do, but I think it mainly involves a misunderstanding of the nature of spiritual experience. It is not necessary to attribute spiritual experience to the supernatural nor to suppose that not doing so diminishes the significance of such experiences.

There are many different perceptions, some have validty to external reality , some do not. But the meaning will vary from person to person and done wisely can be a guide to self balance and understanding.

 

[Dancing David]

Magical is a good choice of words, I wish I had used it in my posts. But you have hit on exactly the crux of what I am trying to get at. That the universe need not be magical to be miraculous or meaningful. Likewise, we can have experiences which are transcendent versus everyday experience and these experiences can be deeply meaningful and enlightening without needing as their source some sort of magical explanation.

I agree, I am a materialist to the core, but then I am a nihilist pagan buddhist as well. So I cover many bases.