Spirituality without faith

Given the prior track record of folly in believing things were supernatural which science provided naturalistic explanations to, why do you seem to think that this isn't the case with the current "observed" supernatural phenomena?

 

Authentic spirituality is not self-confirming . It needs witness , a sensibly authentic otherness .
Like a happy dog , or a smiling fish .

 

"Higher Power" is a concept that grew out of the Twelve Step recovery programs. It is intentionally vague, nebulous, and subjective--denoting whatever thing beyond oneself a person relies on for support in recovery. Some members of the recovery group think of it as their "higher self". Others may think of the group itself as the Higher Power. Or a bedpan. Eventually in the program twelve steppers end up calling the Higher Power "God". I know one atheist who then defines "God" as "Good Orderly Direction."
It is a mental concept that serves a psychological function, working possibly through the power of suggestion, that provides focus and psychological support for the recovery process. The recovery programs place a strong emphasis on the distinction between spirituality and religion. Some say religion puts burdens on people and spirituality takes them off. I've also heard it said that religion is for people who are trying to avoid hell, while spirituality is for those who have already been there.

I think of spirituality in terms of what Rudolph Otto called "the numinous" or the sacred. Phenomenological theories of the origins of religion, like his and Eliade's, stress that this feeling of awe, ecstasy, mystery, and/or dread is deeply rooted in the human psyche and triggered by various natural phenomena. Can an atheist have these feelings? I think so. You mentioned Sam Harris. We might also include Richard Dawkins, who writes: “The feeling of awed wonder that science can give us is one of the highest experiences of which the human psyche is capable. It is a deep aesthetic passion to rank with the finest that music and poetry can deliver. It is truly one of the things that make life worth living and it does so, if anything, more effectively if it convinces us that the time we have for living is quite finite.” Unweaving the Rainbow: Science, Delusion and the Appetitie for Wonder. Carl Sagan and Einstein were known to have similar feelings about the wonder of the universe's integrated complexity. In discussing religion, the Atheist Four Horsemen (Dawkins, Dennett, Harris, and Hitchens) discuss the numinous and how atheists might preserve it while getting rid of religion. the atheist four horseman panel video - Yahoo Video Search Results (beginning around 32.39) I don't see spirituality as necessarily being connected to the supernatural. "Supernatural" is a problematic concept, because ti refers to things which are currently outside the bounds of prevailing scientific paradigms. There are many things science can't yet explain, and we can't assume science will ever explain them adequately: the origin of the universe, the origin of life, the origin and nature of human consciousness, and an explanation of the integrated complexity of the universe--lots of wonder to puzzle over. This doesn't mean that there is necessarily anything supernatural about them but they are intriguing mysteries.

About a decade ago, when I had my "moment of clarity", I came to perceive existence in a radically different way after reading a passage from Genesis: the one that depicts humans as being created in the image and likeness of God. Somehow, it dawned on me that all humans were reflections of the divine presence and should be related to as such, much like the Hindu concept of Atman, the presence of Brahman in all people. I'm not a fundamentalist, so I don't think Genesis needs to be interpreted literally, but this view of humanity caught my interest and became a life changing experience. WallMart shopping is now a spiritual experience for me.lol Anyhow that's my take on spirituality .It's a sense of sacredness that gives wonder and meaning to our existence, and is not necessarily religious or supernatural, although it can be.

 

Too bad I can only give you one like @Okiefreak - that was good!

 

Reasoning from faith , or reasoning from spirituality ? Usually a human reasons from the latter for it's potential
of whole-mindedness . By a literal faith in heaven some people have reasoned our world is a worthless holographic
matrix , and only the Ideal exists . Strangely , they will gleefully inspire murder and suicide .

Spirituality , like psychic ability , advantages survival and when peaceful it can let you know Life is kind from
birth unto death . And then there may be a final and dreamy ever-lasting moment .

 

I never said that I thought the currently observed supernatural phenomena would never be explained via scientific proof. Of course, science might one day finally figure out the real reasons why we experience something supernatural, such as spiritual interventions, for example. But there's always a possibility that such scientific explanations are also not accurate. There is also a possibility that, in the future, science just might become a complete means of explaining all phenomena, not because it then would know how to explain all supernatural phenomena based on scientific proofs, but because it would finally find credibility in the explanations given from the supernatural standpoint. In other words, supernatural awareness just might be what makes science whole, who knows....... I'm just trying to remain open-minded rather than to perceive everything based solely on science, or vice versa.

 

Spirituality has instructed science - new knowledge needs confirmation . Confirmation
may be considered a naturally kind and divine gift .

 

There are plenty of people having supernatural experiences for which there is an explanation, but there are many who have had them for whom there seems to be no reasonable explanation. Unexplained phenomena are currently happening to people and science has no explanation.

I see no reason why, in the future, such phenomena can't be accounted for with our advancing understanding of the universe, but that won't make them any less incredible, necessarily. IMO everything is natural. If we find a phenomena that seems to have a cause that we have no way of understanding, I suppose that will be supernatural. I don't like this bias towards thinking of something's being natural as something's being mundane.

 

Hebrews 11:1 says about faith.

the evident demonstration*of realities that are not seen. had witness borne to them. were put in order by God’s word, so that what is seen has come into existence from things that are not visible.

 

Yes , we are open to revelation of existence and do not command it and ethically should not
repress what is and shall be . Repression exists . Got a problem with that ?

 

I find so many problems with that article, but they follow along the way Naturalists have of trying to sell their beliefs as having a significant meaning for humanity.

Let's start with the word 'spirituality' and 'spiritual.' I find it hard for any naturalist (which is really nothing more than a nice-sounding word for a materialist) to be spiritual or have a spirituality, unless they specifically profess themselves to be Buddhist and to then leave the question of nothingness or void as a mystery without professing it to be a negative, but strictly, material reality. The author related the term spirit to the Latin wind or breath, but then failed to mention the intention behind the word which was handed down from animistic ancestors, therefore our modern usage of the word spirit is closer to its true meaning than a materialist interpretation of wind. How can a Natrualist have a spiritual experience when they deny the very concept of spirit and essence? It would be better that he used the term transcendent--but even then there is a problem---materialism provides an experience that is transcendent of what? It is certainly not transcendent of physicality, because to a Naturalist that is all there is, and therefore there is nowhere to transcend to. The only obvious question is to transcend the human condition---but then what do we have? Only the moment and a sense of awe, or wonder, or some form of temporal peace----unfortunately for too many, this leaves us with nothing more than overly temporal and therefore superficial meaning.(Hence the nihilism of the Modern World which, more than anything else, is a product of Modern Age materialism.)

The next problem is that he treats spirituality as nothing more than, and the equivalent of, organized religion. Spirituality may be at the core of religion, but it is that which enables the ecstatic experience, or even the actual experience of spirit that validates and empowers religion. Spirituality does not require religion. Spirituality preceded every religion. Indigenous spirituality has been handed down from our oldest ancestors and, while science assumes it to be a con job, it should be obvious that it would not have survived so long if it was inauthentic and nothing more than a means of swecuring power (which even denies the whole indigenous power dynamic and wrongly interpets it in a Western perspective). In my own experience, indigenous spirituality involves a power and authentic experience of spirit that each religion has long separated itself from. This is something that one cannot explain and expect others to believe or even understand. It can only be experienced directly, and the experience can be so overpoweringly strange and irrational that it is still difficult for a Westerner to accept. Even if one believes in such things, to actually experience it, it can go so far beyond what makes sense that a Westerner will try to rationalize it and look for the tricks or convince him/herself that it is an illusion of sorts. But in the end, it is here where all materialist assumptions break down.

In a related manner he applies the problems of religion to spirituality. For example, he speaks of both the Cartesian duality and the duality of religion and claims that this is a flaw of spirituality. But this is not always the case. On the one hand, indigenous spirituality represents not a dualistic conception of the universe, but a multiplistic one. On the other hand, Cartesian duality is founded upon the 'religious' experience of a very separate physical and nonphysical reality, a bona fide spiritual experience however can demonstrate that there is an intricate and intimate relationship between a physical and nonphysical reality wherein physicality is dependent upon, rather than seperated from, a nonphysicality. Then there are the further ends of idealism which says that physicality is nothing more than perception of a nonphysical reality that appears physical-----science, in fact, has even gone there under the guise of the holographic universe, for example. Spirituality allows for a multidimensional universe, while materialism tends to limit, or imply that the only valid reality is that which exists within the physical dimensions, of space-time (and yet even time scientifically relies upon a math we define as 'imaginary').

Then there is the epiphenomenalist conclusion that mind simply arises from physicality. Science cannot define consciousness, which by definition is nonphysical. The other problem for consciousness is that it is subjective. Modern science does not have a way to deal with the subjective, especially after Kant separated subjectively focused schools of thought from objective ones. Epiphenomenalism, coincidentally, was a Cartesian philosophy. It basically held that consciousness and free will was an illusion mimicking that which was biologically predetermined. Neuroscience reignited this defunct philosophy with a materialism that is nothing short of arrogant. Consider for example that thousands and thousands of hours of research has determined that there is no true objective measure of emotion and feelings. There is a popular notion that facial movements can determine emotions, and a lot of money is being spent on computers being able to recognize emotions from such characteristics, but the truth is that such things are at best, a calculated guess based on a social concensus. In truth even facial movement does not indicate true emotion. Free will is another example, as there is a popular conclusion that free will does not exist based on research that suggests a very small time lag of measurements of conscious understanding from physical responses. But this is assuming that we are even able to measure actual conscious awareness based on physical ques such as verbal responses. Awareness is entirely subjective and there is no way to guarantee that we can measure it in any format, including measurement of brain impulses. We can't say for sure by any means that a measurement of physical phenomena (for example a measured brain wave) identifies a nonphysical thing (such as consciousness).

He also implies, as all naturalists do, that Naturalism represents the final and only scientifically valid conclusion. The problem here is that Naturalism is a best-fit for only traditional or Newtonian science. Quantum Mechanics provides a view of reality that is so irrational from a physical standpoint that scientists prefer sticking to the math rather than the actual ontology it presents. One example is the superpositioned reality of every particle which is the state anytime other than when it is measured. It is vectorless and everywhere---a state that is anything but physical. A superpositioned wave does not have a space-time position. Quantum Mechanics, from a philosophical standpoint, can strongly suggest essentialism, which Naturalism denies.

Then there is the serious problem that Naturalism is supposed to provide some profound meaning to man and his relationship to the material universe. I will respond to this in my next post.

 

"We shall overcome"... this is a statement of faith , right ? Perhaps it cannot define a person's spirituality , yet spirit
may participate should it be deemed important . Philosophy focuses spirituality (as well science) as to what's important .

 

Spirituality in my opinion, is definitely not equitable to religion. But, maybe we should be less judgmental as to how we all define it. For others, spirituality could come in the form of religion, especially if that's all they have ever known. But, I tend to view it a broader way...and have looked at religion, as very legalistic. Again, though...that's just me.

 

The spirituality of a cult can be extremely judgmental and even secretly , mysteriously so . But for a thus
banished lonesome and free spiritual person - have you a story to share that is more than just complaining ?

 

I'm not ''banished'' or ''lonesome.'' And I'm not complaining. Your post makes no sense.

 

Maybe for some people, spirituality is something that is, in a way, "too vast/deep" so that they might feel the need to rely on religion to come to terms with? Does that make any sense?

I perceive it as a completely separate thing from religion, so I don't have to rely on religion to make sense of it. But maybe for some people, it's something that they have to rely on religion to make sense of.

 

That makes sense, agree. It's one of those things that means different things to different people...it's not like math or science, where only one answer can be the result.

 

That's the problem I have with science; it concludes that, for example, 1+1 has to always equal 2. In my world, 1+1 can be a lot of different things, even 0.

 

Religion has form . Spirituality doesn't need to complain about that . But complainers
who obviously must count do not really like zero.

 

That's what makes Science/Math so powerful, for the rational person the results often demonstrate undeniable objectivity.