daftbeaker wrote:(This bit is christianity-centred, feel free to substitute in other religions.) I used scientists lives as a parallel to saints and warning symbols as a parallel to the crucifix. What saints are there in the bible? None (to my knowledge), they are things that have been tacked on after. Same with the symbols, there is no crucifix in the bible. The earliest symbol I know of for christianity is the fish, the crucifix as a symbol came later. Are you arguing that just because they're added later and not included in the original idea that somehow they're not part of that religion?
I'm saying that science is a process, being in no way shape or form similar to a belief system.
daftbeaker wrote:You're missing my point. If we both have the same sense of awe and I have no spirituality/religion/mumbo-jumbo, then that is not necessary to have the sense of awe, ergo the sense of awe is not related to it.
Related to what? I'm really not sure what you're trying to communicate in this sentence.
daftbeaker wrote:I didn't say that, I asked you to say what about them is divine or sacred or spiritual without a god. What I'm willing to bet is that the answer will be the same general sense of awe and respect I have but misattributed to some theological waffle
What make something spiritual or sacred is, really, an intensely personal thing. I can't really speak for any other religion because I'm not a practitioner of that religion, I can really only speak for UUism.
My point is that while it may be similar to your sense of awe and respect, the mere fact that it is experienced as spiritual makes it different. Plus, there's many more forms of the sacred/spiritual than just "awe and respect." Those are two rather external manifestations, but they don't really cover much internal.