Spirituality

mfin

Spirituality.

Don't get it. Don't get people who think it is a 'thing'. Don't think it can or should be taken seriously.

People who say they are 'spiritual' or mention the spiritual aspects of life. Facepalm.

It is a good way of selling certain tat to certain people though!

rjsterry

mfin wrote:

Spirituality.

Don't get it. Don't get people who think it is a 'thing'. Don't think it can or should be taken seriously.

People who say they are 'spiritual' or mention the spiritual aspects of life. Facepalm.

It is a good way of selling certain tat to certain people though!

Good open-minded approach there. Are you really interested in answering the question or not?

mfin

There's nothing to be open-minded about. I'm completely interested in anything that is based on fact and things that are proven by science. Note that not having a void that needs filling by spirituality or any form of hocus pocus doesn't mean not being open-minded. When evidence of something is scientifically investigated I am completely open to the result, that is open-minded.

I expect there's a fair amount of discussion that could be had about spirituality. Do you have anything to add?

Wheelspinner

mfin wrote:

There's nothing to be open-minded about. I'm completely interested in anything that is based on fact and things that are proven by science. Note that not having a void that needs filling by spirituality or any form of hocus pocus doesn't mean not being open-minded. When evidence of something is scientifically investigated I am completely open to the result, that is open-minded.

Possibly an odd question, but have you ever fallen in love with someone?

If so, why?

Was it just a number of facts that added up to a defined result you expected, or... what?

bompington

Ah, Scientism.

Can you prove that only things that are provable by Science are true?

rick_chasey

mfin wrote:

Spirituality.

Don't get it. Don't get people who think it is a 'thing'. Don't think it can or should be taken seriously.

People who say they are 'spiritual' or mention the spiritual aspects of life. Facepalm.

It is a good way of selling certain tat to certain people though!

Have you ever thought, that, for some people, it really helps their mental well-being?

I'm athiest but even i have taken to sitting in a church from time to time to try and calm my thoughts down.

I can very well imagine if my life had taken a tougher turn, leaning on some type of spiritualism might just help put things into perspective and give you some helpful mental fortitude when the world is being plainly unfair.

We all get through the world in different ways.

mfin

Rick Chasey wrote:

mfin wrote:

Spirituality.

Don't get it. Don't get people who think it is a 'thing'. Don't think it can or should be taken seriously.

People who say they are 'spiritual' or mention the spiritual aspects of life. Facepalm.

It is a good way of selling certain tat to certain people though!

Have you ever thought, that, for some people, it really helps their mental well-being?

Yes, absolutely. However it is not "it" that helps their mental well-being, as "it" in itself is nothing really.

rjsterry

mfin wrote:

There's nothing to be open-minded about. I'm completely interested in anything that is based on fact and things that are proven by science. Note that not having a void that needs filling by spirituality or any form of hocus pocus doesn't mean not being open-minded. When evidence of something is scientifically investigated I am completely open to the result, that is open-minded.

I expect there's a fair amount of discussion that could be had about spirituality. Do you have anything to add?

I meant are you interested in finding out what others mean when they talk about spirituality? If you start from the point of view that it's just people believing in things that they cannot prove then you're not going to get very far. Are you not curious to find out why it seems to be a feature of humanity throughout our history and in all locations? And if it is just believing in imaginary things, that is fascinating in itself. The ability to imagine, to conceive of yourself in a situation other than your immediate environment is an extraordinarily powerful tool and looking at the numbers of us, would seem to have been a very successful series of genetic mutations. Is a sense of spirituality, which seems to occur across all of human history, something that provides a an evolutionary advantage? If it isn't, why is it so prevalent?

mfin

Wheelspinner wrote:

mfin wrote:

There's nothing to be open-minded about. I'm completely interested in anything that is based on fact and things that are proven by science. Note that not having a void that needs filling by spirituality or any form of hocus pocus doesn't mean not being open-minded. When evidence of something is scientifically investigated I am completely open to the result, that is open-minded.

Possibly an odd question, but have you ever fallen in love with someone?

If so, why?

Was it just a number of facts that added up to a defined result you expected, or... what?

I don't see the connection. Love doesn't have me believing in anything weird.

To me that argument is no different to saying have you ever felt really happy or sad about how life is for you.

rick_chasey

mfin wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

mfin wrote:

Spirituality.

Don't get it. Don't get people who think it is a 'thing'. Don't think it can or should be taken seriously.

People who say they are 'spiritual' or mention the spiritual aspects of life. Facepalm.

It is a good way of selling certain tat to certain people though!

Have you ever thought, that, for some people, it really helps their mental well-being?

Yes, absolutely. However it is not "it" that helps their mental well-being, as "it" in itself is nothing really.

Does it matter?

We only know the world through our own brain. Reality is arbitrary anyway.

mfin

rjsterry wrote:

mfin wrote:

There's nothing to be open-minded about. I'm completely interested in anything that is based on fact and things that are proven by science. Note that not having a void that needs filling by spirituality or any form of hocus pocus doesn't mean not being open-minded. When evidence of something is scientifically investigated I am completely open to the result, that is open-minded.

I expect there's a fair amount of discussion that could be had about spirituality. Do you have anything to add?

I meant are you interested in finding out what others mean when they talk about spirituality? If you start from the point of view that it's just people believing in things that they cannot prove then you're not going to get very far.

Yep, interested. Not getting very far? Your next sentences seem to do exactly that...

rjsterry wrote:

Are you not curious to find out why it seems to be a feature of humanity throughout our history and in all locations? And if it is just believing in imaginary things, that is fascinating in itself. The ability to imagine, to conceive of yourself in a situation other than your immediate environment is an extraordinarily powerful tool and looking at the numbers of us, would seem to have been a very successful series of genetic mutations. Is a sense of spirituality, which seems to occur across all of human history, something that provides a an evolutionary advantage? If it isn't, why is it so prevalent?

Wheelspinner

mfin wrote:

Wheelspinner wrote:

mfin wrote:

There's nothing to be open-minded about. I'm completely interested in anything that is based on fact and things that are proven by science. Note that not having a void that needs filling by spirituality or any form of hocus pocus doesn't mean not being open-minded. When evidence of something is scientifically investigated I am completely open to the result, that is open-minded.

Possibly an odd question, but have you ever fallen in love with someone?

If so, why?

Was it just a number of facts that added up to a defined result you expected, or... what?

I don't see the connection. Love doesn't have me believing in anything weird.

To me that argument is no different to saying have you ever felt really happy or sad about how life is for you.

Still single then, eh?

mfin

I completely agree that it is fascinating that many people do consider this stuff real.

Personally I think there are people who feel a need to come to some kind of conclusions about the unknown, and generally they fulfil this need with religion or declaring a belief in the spiritual. There's no need for a rational person to do this. If we accept that our own brains are only capable of so much, and even collectively over generations are only capable of so much, there really is nothing to worry about.

How Trevor from Coventry Bus Station for example could think that his feelings that there is a god or purpose of existence that he thinks is real is actually nothing short of mental. However, I agree that if Trevor from Coventry Bus Station thinks this then he can think this. It is completely self-generated, has no substance, and whilst it might have the illusion of being completely real to him, it very likely isn't, because Trevor from Coventry Bus Station does not know something that others don't.

mfin

Wheelspinner wrote:

Still single then, eh?

No

rjsterry

mfin wrote:

I completely agree that it is fascinating that many people do consider this stuff real.

Personally I think there are people who feel a need to come to some kind of conclusions about the unknown, and generally they fulfil this need with religion or declaring a belief in the spiritual. There's no need for a rational person to do this. If we accept that our own brains are only capable of so much, and even collectively over generations are only capable of so much, there really is nothing to worry about.

How Trevor from Coventry Bus Station for example could think that his feelings that there is a god or purpose of existence that he thinks is real is actually nothing short of mental. However, I agree that if Trevor from Coventry Bus Station thinks this then he can think this. It is completely self-generated, has no substance, and whilst it might have the illusion of being completely real to him, it very likely isn't, because Trevor from Coventry Bus Station does not know something that others don't.

I think your definition of real needs expanding. Personifying something is a way of making it easier for our brains to understand, perhaps in a similar way that we see faces everywhere. In polytheistic religions, individual virtues or phenomena are given different personification and even in monotheistic religions there is usually a split between good and evil. That is not the same as people believing that the god *is* a 'real' physical person or being.

lettingthedaysgoby

bompington wrote:

Ah, Scientism.

Can you prove that only things that are provable by Science are true?

That's... not how it works. Try again.

philcubed

All I know is that Spiritualized are playing the Hackney Empire this Saturday, and I'll be there.

bompington

lettingthedaysgoby wrote:

bompington wrote:

Ah, Scientism.

Can you prove that only things that are provable by Science are true?

That's... not how it works. Try again.

Do explain how it does work for me then...

PhilipPirrip

mfin wrote:

Cycling.

Don't get it. Don't get people who think it is a 'thing'. Don't think it can or should be taken seriously.

People who say they are 'cyclists' or mention the cycling aspects of life. Facepalm.

It is a good way of selling certain tat to certain people though!

Interesting what happens when you change the theme.

lettingthedaysgoby

bompington wrote:

lettingthedaysgoby wrote:

bompington wrote:

Ah, Scientism.

Can you prove that only things that are provable by Science are true?

That's... not how it works. Try again.

Do explain how it does work for me then...

Start with an idea. Test it. Report back. Refine idea.

That's it.

bompington

lettingthedaysgoby wrote:

bompington wrote:

lettingthedaysgoby wrote:

bompington wrote:

Ah, Scientism.

Can you prove that only things that are provable by Science are true?

That's... not how it works. Try again.

Do explain how it does work for me then...

Start with an idea. Test it. Report back. Refine idea.

That's it.

Yes, I know what the scientific method is, and I know how it works.

What you haven't given, and neither has anyone else, is any proof (or even evidence) that the scientific method is the only way of establishing the truth.

lettingthedaysgoby

bompington wrote:

What you haven't given, and neither has anyone else, is any proof (or even evidence) that the scientific method is the only way of establishing the truth.

How else do you propose to establish something, other than evidence? Feelings? A bit of a hunch? Because a bloke in the pub says so?

You put forward the idea of another way, you provide the evidence.

rick_chasey

lettingthedaysgoby wrote:

bompington wrote:

What you haven't given, and neither has anyone else, is any proof (or even evidence) that the scientific method is the only way of establishing the truth.

How else do you propose to establish something, other than evidence? Feelings? A bit of a hunch? Because a bloke in the pub says so?

You put forward the idea of another way, you provide the evidence.

Plenty of things you can't back-test or are not measurable.

Ever heard of Humanities, for example? Not everything is quantifiable.

rjsterry

lettingthedaysgoby wrote:

bompington wrote:

What you haven't given, and neither has anyone else, is any proof (or even evidence) that the scientific method is the only way of establishing the truth.

How else do you propose to establish something, other than evidence? Feelings? A bit of a hunch? Because a bloke in the pub says so?

You put forward the idea of another way, you provide the evidence.

When the thing you are investigating is 'feelings' then looking at feelings would seem to be a good place to start. If you want external physical manifestations of beliefs, beyond observations of brain activity, then there are plenty: any religious building. This would seem to be pretty concrete evidence that belief exists.

What the belief is 'in' is beside the point. It is belief that is important.

bompington

lettingthedaysgoby wrote:

bompington wrote:

What you haven't given, and neither has anyone else, is any proof (or even evidence) that the scientific method is the only way of establishing the truth.

How else do you propose to establish something, other than evidence? Feelings? A bit of a hunch? Because a bloke in the pub says so?

You put forward the idea of another way, you provide the evidence.

Still missing the point.

You should also perhaps look up Haidt on riding the elephant, seeing as how you appear to be convinced that you are motivated by logic alone...

hopkinb

bompington wrote:

What you haven't given, and neither has anyone else, is any proof (or even evidence) that the scientific method is the only way of establishing the truth.

As there are so many competing "truths" out there, I will stick to those that are at least demonstrable and testable. Other "truths" tend to be espoused by people who want other people's money and/or faith & obedience, and tend to be targeted at the vulnerable.

Sitting quietly in a church or other serene space to collect one's thoughts, or engaging in what is called mindfulness, are, I suppose, spiritual acts. Crucially though, these are personal acts, that require no devotion or subordination to a greater power, no adherence to any man-made rules, nor any desire to convert others to one's way of thinking.

Longshot

mfin wrote:

Spirituality.

Don't get it. Don't get people who think it is a 'thing'. Don't think it can or should be taken seriously.

People who say they are 'spiritual' or mention the spiritual aspects of life. Facepalm.

It is a good way of selling certain tat to certain people though!

I don't understand and cannot prove Schrodinger's Cat theory but that hasn't stopped it being taken seriously.

The biggest problem you have with your point above is that I would guess that there are almost as many definitions of what spiritual or spirituality means as there are 'spiritual' people.

rjsterry

hopkinb wrote:

bompington wrote:

What you haven't given, and neither has anyone else, is any proof (or even evidence) that the scientific method is the only way of establishing the truth.

As there are so many competing "truths" out there, I will stick to those that are at least demonstrable and testable. Other "truths" tend to be espoused by people who want other people's money and/or faith & obedience, and tend to be targeted at the vulnerable.

Sitting quietly in a church or other serene space to collect one's thoughts, or engaging in what is called mindfulness, are, I suppose, spiritual acts. Crucially though, these are personal acts, that require no devotion or subordination to a greater power, no adherence to any man-made rules, nor any desire to convert others to one's way of thinking.

We're all subordinate to a greater power and adhere to man-made rules every day of the week. Unless you have declared yourself King of Hopkinland.

hopkinb

rjsterry wrote:

hopkinb wrote:

bompington wrote:

What you haven't given, and neither has anyone else, is any proof (or even evidence) that the scientific method is the only way of establishing the truth.

As there are so many competing "truths" out there, I will stick to those that are at least demonstrable and testable. Other "truths" tend to be espoused by people who want other people's money and/or faith & obedience, and tend to be targeted at the vulnerable.

Sitting quietly in a church or other serene space to collect one's thoughts, or engaging in what is called mindfulness, are, I suppose, spiritual acts. Crucially though, these are personal acts, that require no devotion or subordination to a greater power, no adherence to any man-made rules, nor any desire to convert others to one's way of thinking.

We're all subordinate to a greater power and adhere to man-made rules every day of the week. Unless you have declared yourself King of Hopkinland.

Kneel before me peasant, or feel my wrath.
I thought OP was talking of spirituality, I was referring to spiritual higher powers, religious rules and subordination, proselytising.

chris_bass

Can science ever actually prove something is true?

let's say you have a hypothesis, you test it and test it and it backs up your hypothesis, does that make it true? no.

Science can say what isn't true but can only say what is likely true until proved otherwise.

Just for the record i have a degree in maths, put all my "faith" in science and don't believe there is any good reason to believe in any god or religion. In fact I believe that there is so much wrong with organised religion (from a logic/theory point of view not a moral one - that's a whole different kettle of fish!) that it baffles me anyone thinks that it could be correct!

Pross

Pretty sure trolling on this subject has been done to death on here before (maybe that means it is now being trolled in the afterlife, in which case does that constitute proof?)