Science or Spirituality

I would disagree. It may just be me, but I know that when I do something that I consider to be the 'right' thing...it has spiritual ramifications for me. I simply feel right. This feeling transcends the knowledge of "good" or "bad" in our society (sometimes doing the 'right' thing for me means doing something that is considered 'wrong' in the society I come from). I understand that there is probably a completely biological scientific explanation for such feelings, but that doesn't invalidate them in my mind. The fact is, when I do 'good' things, I feel more spiritually at peace and centered, and when I do 'wrong' things, I feel spiritually disjointed. That's my compass for morality and ethics, and it is very spiritual. But I understand that I may be unique in that regard.

 

You can call on psychology to provide such answers. That's science.

I don't believe in OBE's. People may think that they're receiving experiences or senses that originate elsewhere, but I'm quite convinced it's in their imagination. Falling into a trance isn't anything remarkable, as I've done it a few times before. It's simply shutting down your higher-brain processes and allowing your subconscious mind to take over. When you think you got the stamina and concentration from another source-- it actually was you who brought that about.

Even if one were to THINK they had something which turned out to be a placebo, they very likely could react very differently than if they knew the truth. Give someone a sugar pill for a cold and tell them it will make them better, then the thought is what makes the difference.

 

Nonsense. By this logic, if I say I don't like baseball, then my favorite sport is "not-baseball." What, pray tell, are the rules of not-baseball?

You can't "follow unbelief" because unbelief has no tenets. It is by definition a lack of tenets. So yes, I understand the assertion you're making. Do you understand why it's gibberish?

 

I feel similair to you in such a situation. If I do something wrong, it sticks with me for a long time, and I lose part of my inner peace. If I do right, I feel at peace.

I get where your coming from. We can enter a circular point counter-point on the subject for the next eternity though. So we'll leave it at where it is.

 

Really depends on how you define faith. At some gut level even the most ardent atheist has some faith in the validity of the scientific method. But then you start slicing philosophical hairs like a Phaedrus gone mad and just... oy.

 

It's always fun to split philisophical hairs in your spare time though.

 

I'd like to know what's so wrong with materialism, anyway (as used in a scientific, not social, context). Much like how in political conversations I'm supposed to choke on my own patriotic rage-vomit at the very idea that some person, place or thing might be SOCIALIST (OMG!), "materialism" in science vs. pseudoscience conversations is bandied about as though it's understood that we all ought to recoil in horror at the very idea that the material world is all there is.

But I don't choke on jingoistic incoherence at the very hint of the word socialism, and the idea that we're examining the material world in evidence, and not imagineering anything more to make ourselves feel better, doesn't bother me either.

So if science without faith is mere materialism...how is that a bad thing?

 

Materialism can be a poison to one who doesn't understand that there is more to the world than the material. For example, someone who "keeps up with the Joneses."
They drain time, energy, and money on something they probably didn't need.

On a scientific level, it can lead to things that can cause harm. Like weapons. I got a knife, you get a spear. I get a gun, you get an assault rifle. You get a grenade, I get a cannon. I get a bomb, you get a nuke. It can lead to a lot of people getting hurt/killed. If I am interpreting what you are asking correctly.

 

One, you're assuming that there is in fact spiritual existence, one, and two, that it makes people behave in... harmonious and altruistic?... ways?

One, the spiritual realm certainly hasn't been shown to exist.

Two, an intelligent atheist is perfectly able to understand that 'money can't buy me love', as the Beatles said, and that helping others might bring him more happiness. Which has nothing to do with materiality in a philosophical sense, the rejection of a supernatural realm.

Furthermore, what one does with technology has nothing to do with whether the science behind it is good or bad. So can religious idealogies be bent to impel people to turn on their fellow human. It's a function of the reasoning of the human involved, if they want to kill they'll find a reason and a way to. Technology can also save many, many lives and improve that of many, many more. I'd say it's at least even.

 

That would be social materialism, the desire for social status or wealth, which I said I wasn't talking about.

You're interpreting the question correctly, but your answer makes no sense.

What does materialism -- accepting as real only that for which we have evidence -- have to do with an arms race? This is another strange, unjustified connection you've drawn between two disparate concepts.

If anything, an appreciation that this world is all we have leads to being more concerned with its preservation. The idea that this life is all anyone has makes life more valuable, and valued.

It's the people who believe that there might be something else that fail to appreciate the importance of what we definitely have.

 

I can't speak for other people, but that isn't the case with me. I seek to preserve this world so that future generations can enjoy it. I live in an area surrounded by tree's and a river runs through my back yard. Everyday I see it and I'm in awe and want others to enjoy. I feel it is my obligation to preserve this world, regardless of what may happen at my death. Because when I die, doesn't mean everyone else does. and I drew that wisdom from a Taoist mentality. I think whether or not a person believes in a "great beyond" doesn't nescessarilly impact how they reckonise what we have now. That may be just a character failing if anything else.

 

Sounds like materialism to me...

 

For my appreciation of the physical beauty, yes you can say that. But it is more than just that. There is a calmness to the area. It's easy to let go and relax. Forget about all the problems just let myself be at peace.

 

I think what he's saying, though, is that even "feeling at peace" is material at the most basic level, since you can only feel things that are material.

Though I understand what you're getting at.

 

Then by what definition of Material should we go by? Clearly everything from our computers to our feelings are our personel property. What definition of Material should we establish for future discussion? Or should we apply all forms to each subject? I might go with that one for the say of better understanding.



Also, I would like to rename the thread. I gave it this one because I didn't have anything else. Any and all suggestions are welcomed.

 

Well, you are the one who implied that materialism is bad...

 

You kinda went to the philosophy of we are all born bad/flawed.

It's not a wrong interpretation, just not what I meant.

 

Uhm, that was my first post in this thread.

Isn't that the Christian belief of Original Sin?

 

I didn't mean to put the you in there. Sorry, mistype.

 

JM1511, your line of argumentation is a trainwreck. You are making metaphysical claims and using philosophical terminology without knowing what it means, you are using arguments from mathematics and converting the principles into metaphysical claims, etc., etc., and I'm begging you, please stop now. I have to read papers and arguments like this when I teach Introduction to Philosophy, and there's a reason why I have my students go through multiple drafts. Terms like "materialism" and "method" have meaning, and when we're talking about metaphysics, it's got nothing to do with personal property. The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy would be a good starting point, as would some philosophy of science texts.

Getting "philisophical" [sic] doesn't mean spitballing - it means putting forward a compelling, well-defined argument, and if you are trying to argue for a specific position, you really need to make sure you have a good grasp of that position *as well as the position you are arguing against*, and it's pretty clear that you don't (hence the false dichotomy in the opening post, as well as the invitation to equivocation by suggesting that "spiritualism" can mean different things to different people - by definition that's so nebulous that it contains it's own contradiction, since it leaves you free to define it as "A" and me to define it as "not A"). Again, please, stop now.

 

Like my sig says: "Those who do not know their opponent's arguments, do not completely understand their own"

 

JediMaster1511, don't mind Quix. He just likes to mention that he's got students. Don't stop... it's fun!

But it would be nice if you could admit it when you're wrong. For instance: when Dorkmann patiently explains to you how it is impossible to follow unbelief, you don't say "We'll leave it at that"; you say "Yes, you're right".
Or "Thanks for enlightening me".
Or maybe even "I've learned so much today".
Or how about a friendly "Thank you guys, you really know a lot about this stuff."

Because if you are unable to show that you understand that you lack specific knowledge, sooner or later someone's going to dredge up a Dunning-Kruger link for you... and it will be as if Quix gave you homework.

 

Is this a Brooks sock?

 

It's not that I'm not learning or anything. I probably should concede to points more often. From my side of the screen I do. I just also like to keep the ball rolling to learn more.

I'll admit that the title of this thread is misleading and wrong. I am open to suggestions for a new title.

I understand I lack knowledge. I am a naive and arrogant 22 year old. Most are. I will admit it though. I try to fix it. But it's very hard to do. Though I suspect getting older will help. I do realise age and wisdom are not the same thing.

I apologise for the way I may come off. I like to learn. Don't interpret my "We'll leave it at that" as me not willing to admit I'm wrong. I meant no disrespect.


And I had no intentions of stopping.