T159,
You are always welcome to make recommendations. Although, i am not so much of a movie buff, but i will definitely try to watch your recommendation.
mediator,
Thank you for replying back and filling the void. I will try to answer the points that you have raised, but, not as para by para, as you have done, for the reason of lack of time and of course my limited knowledge of formatting. However I will try to cover everything that seems relevant to the discussion.
Spirituality, Non-spirituality, Experiences and Can we be good without spirituality:
I do not have any problem with your definition of spirituality, as long as it is about “the path to know the nature, understand ur own body and mind”. Some might, however, go about the same by means of nature study, or study of biology or neurology or anthropology etc. and call it education.
We are of course connected to each other by a common prehistoric ancestor, which has since long disappeared without a trace. The fact, that all vertebrates have a common sea ancestor, is evidenced by the fact that we still need sodium chloride to maintain our bodily functions. So, I also don’t see why we can’t say that we are connected in an evolutionary process, although, the genetic print of that one common ancestor is lost due to millions of years of mutation.
Wisdom, again, can be had through proper education (It does not refer to academic education only. For a tribe living in the deep jungles of the Amazon basin, the most pertinent education is how to hunt successfully) and right experiences, (e.g. if you take your hand close to the fire, the heat should warn you of the damage it may cause to your hand, and you would recoil your hand. This experience should teach you to stay away from fire). This is where, I would part ways. Trying to know the “eternal” wisdom, however, presupposes that there is something “eternal” or “infinite” about some wisdom. Materialists are not good with presuppositions and seeks clear explanations, which I am sure, you will provide.
[In one debate with another spiritual person, I was told, that it is learning the “eternal truth”. When I asked what do you mean by eternal truth, he replied back that it is about acknowledging and understanding that there is a greater consciousness, far bigger than the self. When I pointed to him that since he could explain what “eternal truth” is, it would mean that he has already known it, and hence his journey of spiritualism has ended, he, of course, replied back in kind words of the ghetto.]
Non-spirituality, on the basis of your definition would be, pursuing knowledge through study of empirical evidence (as in nature studies, biology, neurology, anthropology etc.) or reasoning (as in evolutionary science), without having to resort to non-physical.
The experiences, that you have associated with your definition of spirituality, can also be described as a feeling of wonderment, or a state of being in awe. I would like to think, everybody, whether spiritual or not, has enough sensitivity or emotion to make one appreciate beauty or quality, although it may vary in degree. Just because someone is spiritual, he is better suited to enjoy nature, or understand Mozart, or appreciate Tagore’s novels, or marvel at Picasso’s painting, is an argument, that does not support evidence.
It is perhaps not fair to assume, that just because one is not spiritual, he will be callous, self-hedonist, with no charity or kindness or generosity, and because one is spiritual he will be all of those. I understand that you are a fairly charitable person, and you believe that all this came to you because of your deep involvement with spirituality. Fair enough. But why are you assuming that this is the only way to goodness. A theist, on the other hand would claim, that the only way to goodness is god. Since you are an atheist, you will not find reason in it. But in doing so, you will be putting yourself in the same shoes of a non-spiritual person, as opposed to spiritual person.
As it turns out, that, the reasons of altruism can be explained by means of Darwinian Natural Selection. There are several books on this subject only, notably by Marc Hauser, Robert Hinde or Richard Dawkins. Marc Hauser, in his book “Moral Minds”, actually goes a step ahead, in testing the premise, that morality is subjective to religion, or as the case may be, spirituality. Not surprisingly, sense of morality was found to be absolute, irrespective of one’s faith, belief or religion. Different things work for different people. If spirituality motivates one to be good, then for other people it can be something else, say for example, his sense of duty towards his family or society as whole. That sense, is firstly genetically printed in all of us, and secondly, polished by means of, believe in spirituality, in someone’s case, or humanism, in some others.
Note carefully, that I am not claiming that non-spirituality, increases, the goodness in human being. I am merely pointing out that there is no correlation between non-spirituality and badness, or for that matter, spirituality and goodness.
Physical, Non-Physical and Is everything Physical:
Physical means, which has presence in time and space. Non-physical means which does not. When materialists argue about everything being physical, it means that all phenomena, however, strange or mysterious it may appear to common sense, can be explained as or traced back or reduced to some physical process. Does gravity have a physical presence or a non-physical presence ? The correct question is, is gravity a result of some physical process or a non-physical process. As it turns out, it is a result of motion of matter, even at molecular level. Since, gravity is dependent on mass and motion, if any of the two is taken away, gravity ceases, confirming it to be physical process.
Same is the case with emotions. Loosely we ascribe it to mind, whereas, a materialist would call it a faculty of brain, which can further be reduced to some neural activities, resulting in flow of hormone, specially, Serotonin. A misbalance in the flow of this hormone causes, extreme emotions. Same is the case with intelligence or similar other phenomena.
If mind is a separate entity, then it does not explain adequately why, when a person faces near death experience, that leaves her handicapped severely, she suffers from trauma, which can, in most cases be permanent. If mind does not have a spaceal existence, should not it remain unscathed.
Is religion a means of spirituality:
According to the explanation given by you, it is not. But to a theist, it is. Your definition is acceptable to you, for reasons that you feel are valid. A theists, definition is also valid to him, again, for reasons, that he finds acceptable. Implying, that he is wrong and you are right, requires explanation as to why. A materialist, meanwhile, is immune to any definition of spirituality, and however it is presented, whether in religious package or otherwise.
Every person, finds her religion to be “good” and all other religions to be “bad”, there is nothing new about it. What is, however, new is an atheist, would find it alright, bringing in a distinction between “good” religion and “bad” religion. Should not an atheist be indifferent to a religion as a whole. Are we sure, that we are not jumping into some conclusion on the basis of current day events in the name of religion, without actually studying them. Because if it is the current day events, that are making us bring this distinction, then can we at all bring in this distinction in the first place.
However, I understand, that it is the misinterpretation of Gore Vidal and more currently, the lenient tone of Sam Harris, that have quite inadvertently, added fuel to the fire of making such distinctions.
You have not experienced, so you don’t know:
Dealt with, in my previous post. Hence not repeating. I continue to hold my position.
Millions believe and experience, hence true:
Millions believe that jesus was born of a virgin woman, and millions claim to feel god, (priests, monks, yogis), but that does not preclude you to become an atheist. You surely have your reasons for being an atheist. But if you call upon this argument, a theist may use the same against your atheistic belief. You can’t disagree to one argument in one context and agree to the same in another, according to whim or convenience.
Also, is there any safety in numbers ? That, there is none, was proved by Copernicus, with his life, and Galileo, with his surrender.
Wrong examples ? Stealing, Sherpas, Doctors and beer /coke/ pepsi:
The example of stealing bread by a hungry man, was an example of right action not of right morality. If someone holds a gun against an atheist, (e.g. Galileo) and asks her to become a theist, she may find it right to do exactly that, for she may wish to see the next morning. It is a case of how right and wrong change with circumstance.
Your explanation regarding Sherpas, is actually the same as mine. You, not being a Sherpa, could conclude, that they don’t find climbing steep mountains as laborious as, say, you and me, because you have observed them and probably even studied. It simply is the other way of saying that, experiencing is not always necessary to conclude, as knowledge is.
True, the doctor does not reject the possibilities. But he does so because, each possibility is REAL to him. And one of these possibilities will lead him to something REAL, i.e. the disease, itself. By REAL, I mean something that can be tested and verified, empirically.
My argument on, spiritual persons being the highest drinkers of beer/ coke/ pepsi, were based on principles of statistics. If in a room of 10 people, 8 believe in theory A and 2 believe in theory B, then a random sample of, say 6, will reflect the believers of theory A to be greater in number than the believers of theory B. Yes, there is probably no research or data to prove my point. But, to believe, that spiritual people in the European countries, or say, American continents do not drink beer or coke or pepsi, is probably stretching our imagination beyond reason. Coke/ pepsi are health hazard all round the world and indeed toilet cleaners, in every sense of the phrase, but only in India. It is because, our political leaders (sic) have let our land to be the favorite dumping ground, or laboratory of the western companies.
Arguments based on assumptions and unproven feats:
To be able to tell what a person is thinking, or where is she, at a precise given time, yogis stopping heart beats at will, people receiving intuitional messages are all unproven facts. Proof doesn’t mean a claim to do those, but it means, if those feats could be replicated under controlled environment with credible scientists around.
You don’t see a materialist, resort to some non testable or non verifiable events or feats to stake her claim. That’s because, empirical evidence is the key for a materialist.
You don’t know this or that:
Please stop making comments like that. It only leads an argument to nullity. The same way as you accuse people of not knowing something, one may label you to be not knowing what you are talking of. A “materialist” can accuse you of commenting on materialism without knowing what it is, particularly, in spite of explaining what it is in clear terms, when you say, “materialism is about material world and its materialistc pleasures”. One may be tempted to accuse you of twisting explanation to better suite your own ideas.
Just because someone holds a view, which is diametrically opposite to yours, it does not mean that the person is a lesser person. If it is so, again, one can say, that since you are holding an opposing view, you become the same, by your own premise, and it goes into an infinite reduction.
Regards.
