2 of 3
2
Non-religious but spiritual
Posted: 04 July 2017 06:32 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 16 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  7851
Joined  2009-02-26
Tanny - 04 July 2017 04:09 PM

The universe is the One. As such I am a part of the one, along with everything else and collectively, everything is the One.

One road to being spiritual (but not religious) is to focus on exploring the experience of this oneness. 

If it’s true that all is one, why do we experience ourselves as a separate thing?  Why do we experience reality as a collection of separate things?

I can’t find the post you quoted, so I’ll use your post to address the quotation.

The term “the One” is misleading (by implication) and the following conclusion that being part of the One is therefore also misleading (by implication).

IMO, a better statement would be “the universe is the Wholeness, I and everything else is part of the Wholeness”. This would be a sufficient statement without any implication of a “spiritual connection”. Being part of the Wholeness is a physical or mathematical connection, which is common knowledge and has no foundation in spiritualism, but in science.

 Signature 

Art is the creation of that which evokes an emotional response, leading to thoughts of the noblest kind.
W4U

Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 July 2017 04:27 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 17 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  249
Joined  2017-06-25

The term “the One” is misleading (by implication) and the following conclusion that being part of the One is therefore also misleading (by implication).

“Being part of the One” is misleading in the sense that it assumes there is a separate something which is part of some other something. 

The problem here is that language is built upon this assumption of “things”, thus it’s quite difficult to discuss any of this without that assumption infecting the conversation.  As example, consider the noun, a fundamental building block of language.  The purpose of a noun is to conceptually divide reality.  The word “tree” assumes tree is one thing, and soil, water, air, sun are other things.  Conceptually it’s all very neat and tidy.  But in the real world everything is connected to everything else.

Being part of the Wholeness is a physical or mathematical connection, which is common knowledge and has no foundation in spiritualism, but in science.

This is a widely held opinion.  There are other widely held opinions.  And no proof for any of them.

The word “spiritualism” would seem to refer to spirits, often thought of as some form of intelligence outside of matter, or at least outside of our understanding of matter. It’s entirely possible to make a case for something that could be called “spirits” without resorting to any supernatural claims.  Not proof of course, just a reasonable case.

What I’m getting at has sometimes been called mysticism.  There are many different understandings of that word, but what I mean by it is a focus on experience over ideology.  The principle here is that experiences which are sometimes called “spiritual” have value in themselves and explanations are not really required. 

As example, if you eat a banana, it doesn’t matter what you call that piece of fruit, or whether or not you understand the processes of digestion.  The nutrition is in the eating, not in the labeling, analyzing and explaining etc.

 Signature 

Countdown To Zero - Nuclear Weapons Documentary

Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 July 2017 04:35 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 18 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4218
Joined  2009-10-21
Tanny - 05 July 2017 04:27 AM

Being part of the Wholeness is a physical or mathematical connection, which is common knowledge and has no foundation in spiritualism, but in science.

This is a widely held opinion.  There are other widely held opinions.  And no proof for any of them.

 

Just what does the word “proof” mean to you. You are throwing it around like it doesn’t have much meaning at all. You are sliding toward solipsism, which is a weak place to take a stand.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 July 2017 06:14 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 19 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  249
Joined  2017-06-25
Lausten - 05 July 2017 04:35 AM

Just what does the word “proof” mean to you. You are throwing it around like it doesn’t have much meaning at all. You are sliding toward solipsism, which is a weak place to take a stand.

More lazy, emotion driven, vague characterizations designed primarily to start a personality squabble flapdoodle confrontation.

sddefault.jpg

 Signature 

Countdown To Zero - Nuclear Weapons Documentary

Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 July 2017 07:11 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 20 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1337
Joined  2005-01-14
Tanny - 05 July 2017 04:27 AM

The word “spiritualism” would seem to refer to spirits, often thought of as some form of intelligence outside of matter, or at least outside of our understanding of matter. It’s entirely possible to make a case for something that could be called “spirits” without resorting to any supernatural claims.  Not proof of course, just a reasonable case.

I know I’m going to regret asking this, but can you give me an example of “some form of intelligence outside of matter, or at least outside our understanding of matter… without resorting to any supernatural claims”?  I can’t think of any right of the top.

To hopefully avoid any confusion, when I say “spiritual”, I’m not referring at all to “spiritualism”, which is something different.  I’m talking about things that relate only to the mind, things that “inspire”.  There is nothing supernatural about that.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 July 2017 07:38 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 21 ]
Member
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  116
Joined  2017-06-24
Write4U - 04 July 2017 06:32 PM

I can’t find the post you quoted, so I’ll use your post to address the quotation.

The term “the One” is misleading (by implication) and the following conclusion that being part of the One is therefore also misleading (by implication).

The post was my OP. How can these forums be debate if people ignore the OP? It seems like the people complaining about specific words haven’t bothered to assimilate it, even if they read it. There were qualifications and explanations. Perhaps not perfect, but words aren’t perfect. I noted in that OP that people tend to put their own interpretations on words and in a later post noted the tendency debaters have to redefine words to suit their arguments. It is a logical fallacy made easier when context is ignored as seems to be the case with the objections here.

Tanny - 05 July 2017 04:27 AM

“Being part of the One” is misleading in the sense that it assumes there is a separate something which is part of some other something.

There isn’t anything else - another logic fallacy clarified in my OP….

JohnH - 24 June 2017 03:40 PM

The universe is the One. As such I am a part of the one, along with everything else and collectively, everything is the One.

Is our heart a separate thing from our lungs?

No-one responded to this but I expect all would accept that both are a part of the one that we call a human being. In mathematical terms, the heart set and the lung set are subsets of the human being set. The One is the set of all sets.
Reverence is probably another word that evokes a knee-jerk response in people who feel they need to defend an atheist position. Defined formally as “deep respect for someone or something” and perhaps mixed with awe is the foundation of my view of the world. The processes that brought about this world we live in are awe-inspiring to me and go so far beyond the capabilities of humankind and even what most of humankind can comprehend that such awe becomes “spiritual”. Not because it involves magic or supernatural but simply because it is so far beyond present human capabilities. It doesn’t have to involve a plan or divine intervention. It is a greater comfort than either of these things to know that I am still a part of something (the natural universe) that brought me into existence and nurtured me and my ancestors, even before humanity. I am not a part of a plan or a goal. Just a stepping stone to something that the processes which created me will find more desirable - and I even find comfort in that, despite the notion that my kind are very unlikely to exist forever.

[ Edited: 06 July 2017 09:32 AM by JohnH ]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 July 2017 07:41 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 22 ]
Member
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  116
Joined  2017-06-24
JohnH - 05 July 2017 07:38 AM
Write4U - 04 July 2017 06:32 PM

I can’t find the post you quoted, so I’ll use your post to address the quotation.

The term “the One” is misleading (by implication) and the following conclusion that being part of the One is therefore also misleading (by implication).

The post was my OP. How can these forums be debate if people ignore the OP? It seems like the people complaining about specific words haven’t bothered to assimilate it, even if they read it. There were qualifications and explanations. Perhaps not perfect, but words aren’t perfect. I noted in that OP that people tend to put their own interpretations on words and in a later post noted the tendency debaters have to redefine words to suit their arguments. It is a logical fallacy made easier when context is ignored as seems to be the case with the objections here.

Tanny - 05 July 2017 04:27 AM

“Being part of the One” is misleading in the sense that it assumes there is a separate something which is part of some other something.

There isn’t anything else - another logic fallacy clarified in my OP….

JohnH - 24 June 2017 03:40 PM

The universe is the One. As such I am a part of the one, along with everything else and collectively, everything is the One.

Is our heart a separate thing from our lungs?

No-one responded to this but I expect all would accept that both are a part of the one that we call a human being. In mathematical terms, the heart set and the lung set are subsets of the human being set. The One is the set of all sets.
Reverence is probably another word that evokes a knee-jerk response in people who feel they need to defend an atheist position. Defined formally as “deep respect for someone or something” and perhaps mixed with awe is the foundation of my view of the world. The processes that brought about this world we live in are awe-inspiring to me and go so far beyond the capabilities of humankind and even what most of humankind can comprehend that such awe becomes “spiritual”. Not because it involves magic or superbeing but simply because it is so far beyond present human capabilities. It doesn’t have to involve a plan or divine intervention. It is a greater comfort than either of these things to know that I am still a part of something (the natural universe) that brought me into existence and nurtured me and my ancestors, even before humanity. I am not a part of a plan or a goal. Just a stepping stone to something that the processes which created me will find more desirable - and I even find comfort in that, despite the notion that my kind are very unlikely to exist forever.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 July 2017 12:19 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 23 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  7851
Joined  2009-02-26

@ JohnH,
Regardless of author, did I misquote the sentence?  My response was not to the author but to the quoted passage. I still stand by it.

If you are the author, the answer is still the same.

 Signature 

Art is the creation of that which evokes an emotional response, leading to thoughts of the noblest kind.
W4U

Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 July 2017 01:04 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 24 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4218
Joined  2009-10-21

Thanks for trying to get this thread back on track. Tanny and I are stuck in an endless loop.

To your question: “Can we find a justification beyond “it just seems right” to house the homeless, to feed the world’s hungry, to educate the world’s uneducated, to care for each other instead of fighting each other?”

I came up with this after participating in some local groups on how to build community.

If we are being at all, we should care for others. The reason for caring for others is that others cared for us. As we expand who we help, who we educate, more people will be able to use their skills effectively and find their best fit in the world. As we do this, people see a world of hope where their children will survive and help each other, educate each other, empower each other. All this leads to people making better choices; for leadership, for their environment, for their future. It leads to wise choices about governments instead of feeling a need to tear them down. We can do this on the world scale, bringing appropriate technology where it is needed, as well as across the table from each other, listening intently, and teaching instead of fighting.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 July 2017 02:37 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 25 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  7851
Joined  2009-02-26

JohnH - 24 June 2017 03:40 PM

The universe is the One. As such I am a part of the one, along with everything else and collectively, everything is the One.

Same answer. If you read my reply you will notice that I also included everything as part of the Wholeness.

“The One” is misleading. It implies a personal entity.  “The Wholeness” is a neutral description of All there is, not The One, IMO.

You may see this as semantics, but the implied meanings are different.

the one.  DEFINITION; a person’s destined life partner:

“it sounds corny, but I think he’s the one”

Wholeness, noun.

8. the whole assemblage of parts or elements belonging to a thing; the entire quantity, account, extent, or number:
    He accepted some of the parts but rejected the whole.

9. a thing complete in itself, or comprising all its parts or elements.

10. an assemblage of parts associated or viewed together as one thing; a unitary system.

You see the implied difference?

 Signature 

Art is the creation of that which evokes an emotional response, leading to thoughts of the noblest kind.
W4U

Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 July 2017 03:10 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 26 ]
Member
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  116
Joined  2017-06-24
Lausten - 05 July 2017 01:04 PM

The reason for caring for others is that others cared for us.

I’m not sure that motivates everyone - and certainly not everything,
(and humans aren’t the only species that help each other). There is still the vexing question that you don’t need to reciprocate to receive help. However, you could argue that it is indirectly true because one evolutionary criterion for fitness can be caring for each other. Cooperation may be another way to put it and directs thoughts towards how much more a group of cooperating individuals can accomplish relative to an isolated individual. Cooperation is a well recognized feature of evolution (e.g. - https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3279745/#__ffn_sectitle - Five rules for the evolution of cooperation by Martin A. Nowak) although you’d hardly recognize it with the almost singleminded focus on violence and competition, even in so-called documentaries on nature - “red in tooth and claw”.
If cooperation is a desirable trait, you’d expect at least some species to cooperate - as so many do.

As we expand who we help, who we educate, more people will be able to use their skills effectively and find their best fit in the world. As we do this, people see a world of hope where their children will survive and help each other, educate each other, empower each other.

That makes sense to me and is a small part of what we may consider to be behaving responsibly. Another list of ways to care would encompass the behaviors we may call moral. Morality is about treating others well and discouraging maltreatment which likely contribute to a stable and productive society. A thriving society rather than one that merely ‘survives’. Evolution has resulted in genetically controlled brain wiring to perform a myriad of different functions. Is it not possible that our brain wiring also evolved to express morality because morality expresses functions that improve our ability to integrate into a more complex world that improves our abilities to survive and thrive? Evolution is about so much more than the popular notion of fighting for survival. There are better ways to evolve. We found them but largely fail to acknowledge them. Know it or not, we are moral because our brains are wired that way.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 July 2017 04:06 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 27 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  7851
Joined  2009-02-26

You mean something like this. My favorite hominid.

Bonobo Chimpanzee, Published on Jun 16, 2014

Bonobos are the only ape that doesn’t kill. And unlike any other ape, bonobos help each other out (a lot like humans do). Through the use of “bonobo TV,” researchers found that bonobos’ yawns are contagious (also like humans). But while they have humanlike traits, their biggest threat comes from humans. ➡ Subscribe: http://bit.ly/NatGeoSubscribe

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sN-Hj73ES2U

 Signature 

Art is the creation of that which evokes an emotional response, leading to thoughts of the noblest kind.
W4U

Profile
 
 
Posted: 06 July 2017 05:40 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 28 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  249
Joined  2017-06-25

John,

If you’re going to address moral issues, I think you’re inevitably going to find yourself heading back towards religion, or at least some other ideology.

You labeled yourself as “Non-religious but spiritual”. 

Is it your intent to move from religion to some other ideology?

Or to move from religion to spirituality?  I’m defining “spirituality” as experience, and not interpretations of experience.  Others will have their own definitions of course.  How do you define it?

 Signature 

Countdown To Zero - Nuclear Weapons Documentary

Profile
 
 
Posted: 06 July 2017 07:01 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 29 ]
Member
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  116
Joined  2017-06-24
Tanny - 06 July 2017 05:40 AM

John,
If you’re going to address moral issues, I think you’re inevitably going to find yourself heading back towards religion, or at least some other ideology.??

I suppose you could call evolution an ideology.
Are you suggesting that morality can only be a result of religion?
Are we (and other creatures) moral? If we are, where did that morality come from?
What is religious or spiritual about…

Is it not possible that our brain wiring also evolved to express morality because morality expresses functions that improve our ability to integrate into a more complex world that improves our abilities to survive and thrive?

Tanny - 06 July 2017 05:40 AM

Is it your intent to move from religion to some other ideology?

If evolution is an ideology, yes.

Tanny - 06 July 2017 05:40 AM

Or to move from religion to spirituality?  I’m defining “spirituality” as experience, and not interpretations of experience.  Others will have their own definitions of course.??

From religion to experience? Insofar as our understanding of evolution can be called experience.

Tanny - 06 July 2017 05:40 AM

How do you define it?

Last paragraph of post 21 - http://www.centerforinquiry.net/forums/viewreply/233524/
Spam antibody

Profile
 
 
Posted: 06 July 2017 07:18 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 30 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  249
Joined  2017-06-25
JohnH - 06 July 2017 07:01 AM

Are you suggesting that morality can only be a result of religion?

No, not at all.  Only that any moral system will be designed in the realm of ideas.  That doesn’t make it bad necessarily, but is that spirituality?

Tanny - 06 July 2017 05:40 AM

Is it your intent to move from religion to some other ideology?

If evolution is an ideology, yes.

Ok, thanks.  My point would be that every ideology ever invented has come in to conflict with other ideologies, and more telling, also sub-divided in to internal warring factions.  So even if an ideology is not religious, many of the same objectionable phenomena will present themselves.  As example, some hard core atheists seem just as nutty as the hard core religious, and the fact that their ideologies are polar opposites seems not to matter.

From religion to experience?

Right.  Religion is generally talk about experience.  Jesus went in to the desert and had some experience.  And then Jesus and lots of people started interpreting that experience, arguing about it, etc.

“Religion to experience” might involve going in to the desert, having the experience, and then valuing the experience for itself, setting aside the process of interpretation. 

If an experience is “nutritious”, who cares what it’s called or what it means etc?  As example here might be food.  It’s value does not depend on labels, analysis, interpretation etc.

 Signature 

Countdown To Zero - Nuclear Weapons Documentary

Profile
 
 
   
2 of 3
2