Opt in or opt out?

[Qwertyuiopasd]

(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.

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.

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.

[Tigger_the_Wing]

What I'm getting from watching this discussion from the sidelines is that DB and Qwerty like to interpret their similar feelings using different terminology.

Everything that DB attributes to biological processes (emotions = hormones, awe = neurones firing) Qwerty attributes to spirituality.

Now to put the cat among the pigeons.

DB, what evidence is there for your emotions and feelings being purely of biological origin?

Qwerty, what evidence do you have for your emotions and feelings being of spiritual origin?



I'll just go back to lurking…

[daftbeaker]

Now to put the cat among the pigeons.

DB, what evidence is there for your emotions and feelings being purely of biological origin?

Well, I'm not a robot

I suppose my feelings could be the result of the almighty creator god playing with my mind or weird space parsnips beaming thoughts into my head or some crazy MoD version of MKULTRA but until there's some evidence for them I'll stick with the biological

(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.

I know. What I'm saying is that in this argument, science being a religion is 'true' for me Things are so much easier with the power to redefine reality how I like

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.

We both have a general respect for life, are impressed at the sheer size and scope of life on Earth, a sense of wonder when we look at the Universe and realise just how little of it we are, yes? Now if we both have that feeling then it cannot be spiritual in cause because I don't have spirituality.

To put it slightly more mathematically:
If A goes to X and A + B goes to X then B has no effect on X. (A being looking around, X being sense of awe and B being spirituality/religion/whathaveyou.)

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.

Ah good, theological waffle

[Qwertyuiopasd]

We both have a general respect for life, are impressed at the sheer size and scope of life on Earth, a sense of wonder when we look at the Universe and realise just how little of it we are, yes? Now if we both have that feeling then it cannot be spiritual in cause because I don't have spirituality.

To put it slightly more mathematically:
If A goes to X and A + B goes to X then B has no effect on X. (A being looking around, X being sense of awe and B being spirituality/religion/whathaveyou.)

No, no. X for you and me are different, because I interpret mine as spiritual. It'd be more like X and X', if anything.

It sounds like you're trying to disprove the existence of some supernatural thing causing the spirituality. It doesn't really work like that, it's much more of an internal thing, how people relate to their world, etc. If someone says "I'm a very spiritual person," your saying "well, no you're not, because none of that exists," doesn't change the fact of their experiences, whether or not anything is actually there.

Qwerty, what evidence do you have for your emotions and feelings being of spiritual origin?

Again, it's not about origin. It's about interpretation/relation. When I worship in church, or at a bridging (essentially graduation) worship with youths, what I experience and what I feel is a sacred, spiritual thing to me.

So it's not that the emotions or feelings are of spiritual origin, it's that they are spiritual emotions and feelings.

[daftbeaker]

We both have a general respect for life, are impressed at the sheer size and scope of life on Earth, a sense of wonder when we look at the Universe and realise just how little of it we are, yes? Now if we both have that feeling then it cannot be spiritual in cause because I don't have spirituality.

To put it slightly more mathematically:
If A goes to X and A + B goes to X then B has no effect on X. (A being looking around, X being sense of awe and B being spirituality/religion/whathaveyou.)

No, no. X for you and me are different, because I interpret mine as spiritual. It'd be more like X and X', if anything.

I can interpret falling down the stairs as being caused by fairies, doesn't mean it is

It sounds like you're trying to disprove the existence of some supernatural thing causing the spirituality. It doesn't really work like that, it's much more of an internal thing, how people relate to their world, etc. If someone says "I'm a very spiritual person," your saying "well, no you're not, because none of that exists," doesn't change the fact of their experiences, whether or not anything is actually there.

It doesn't change anything by asserting things without evidence either. Saying 'this is spiritual because I say so' carries no weight, anymore than me arguing that the feeling of relief after urinating is 'spiritual'.

Qwerty, what evidence do you have for your emotions and feelings being of spiritual origin?

Again, it's not about origin. It's about interpretation/relation. When I worship in church, or at a bridging (essentially graduation) worship with youths, what I experience and what I feel is a sacred, spiritual thing to me.

So it's not that the emotions or feelings are of spiritual origin, it's that they are spiritual emotions and feelings.

Ah, so it's a feeling that you think should be spiritual, therefore you decide it is spiritual?

[Qwertyuiopasd]

No, it is because it is. It's not like I go out and decide for things to be spiritual. Though when going to an intentionally spiritual community like church or a youth conference, this is more likely to happen because it is what we're going for, it won't necessarily be so. For instance, I've been in worship services and thought "Meh, this isn't doing anything for me." Even if it "should."

And again, "cause" has nothing to do with it.

[daftbeaker]

No, it is because it is. It's not like I go out and decide for things to be spiritual.

So what makes something 'spiritual' then? It looks to me like classic confirmation bias, you want there to be something spiritual and then when you get a sense of wonder at something you assume it must be spiritual.

And again, "cause" has nothing to do with it.

It has everything to do with it, unless you get these 'spiritual' feelings all the time?

[Roy Hunter]

I kept a diary for a couple of years, when I was a bit 'unwell'. My feelings of spirituality showed a distinct correlation with changes in my medication regime. Either that, or Tegretol is actually a message from God.
(unwell=mental, btw)

[Qwertyuiopasd]

So what makes something 'spiritual' then? It looks to me like classic confirmation bias, you want there to be something spiritual and then when you get a sense of wonder at something you assume it must be spiritual.

You still misunderstand. It's not a sense of wonder, it's a feeling of something being spiritual. I mean, what makes something a "sense of wonder," specifically? Keeping in mind, of course, that when I say spiritual I'm mostly talking about things entirely separate from reading an article on how big the universe is and thinking "Gee that's cool."

[daftbeaker]

So what makes something 'spiritual' then? It looks to me like classic confirmation bias, you want there to be something spiritual and then when you get a sense of wonder at something you assume it must be spiritual.

Keeping in mind, of course, that when I say spiritual I'm mostly talking about things entirely separate from reading an article on how big the universe is and thinking "Gee that's cool."

And I'm not talking about "Gee, that's cool"

Unfortunately I suspect we've now gotten into the question of whether your 'spiritual' feelings are the same as mine which is like asking whether the colour I call red is the same as yours

[Roy Hunter]

If you want to get into the neurological / biological basis for God, you could do worse than check out what Paul Bloom has to say...