This old chestnut, again

@fmf said
As far as I am aware, 'science' has still got a long way to go to explain human consciousness.

I agree.

Would you agree that science not being able to [as yet] fully explain human consciousness, does not, should not, lead to assuming that therefore the metaphysical can do?

I’d so, then surely that is a parallel to the historical thinking that because I or science cannot explain where the universe came from, where I came from - therefore God did it?

@divegeester said
Would you agree that science not being able to [as yet] fully explain human consciousness, does not, should not, lead to assuming that therefore the metaphysical can do?

Not really. But, as I have stated many times, human consciousness is perhaps the best evidence theists or deists have got of there being a creator being [albeit not enough to make me become a religionist].

A metaphysical perspective allows us to examine the subjective experience of having consciousness rather than its origin, if that origin is supernatural. At least that's how I see it.

@divegeester
I'm not sure why I would feel a need for a "metaphysical dynamic".

Physical Reality is wondrous enough for me.

@bigdoggproblem said
@divegeester
I'm not sure why I would feel a need for a "metaphysical dynamic".

Physical Reality is wondrous enough for me.

Physical reality isn’t the metaphysical, it isn’t spirituality. Spirituality is of the metaphysical, beyond the physical reality.

@divegeester
I still don't agree with your last sentence. We're probably at an impasse there.

Isn't metaphysics 'just' things that science can't yet explain? The big inexplicables to me are where did everything come from, how life began on earth, and how homo sapiens became self - aware and imaginative. Scientists have for now posited the 'big bang' theory, theists will say it was god, neither of which explains very much. The first cells formed from amino acids and natural stuff that was lying around; theists will say this is impossible, (the odds against it, blah blah blah...) scientists will say it isn't, we just haven't worked out how it happened yet. Enter 'belief', religion; if science can't explain it god must have done it, just choose your god. (Or more likely have it chosen for you) Once you have first cells, the rest is evolution, which is pure, evidential and explicable science.
The 'self awareness' thing is the reason that we are asking the questions in the first place. Uniquely, we are aware of our own existence, and therefore that we are going to die, and what happens then? Theists will say we go to heaven (again, choose your version of heaven) or hell, atheists will say we don't; death is the end of us in our current physical form, we become something else. Where there is belief there is non - belief, and agnosticism.
We have (somehow) the capacity to imagine, which is where I think belief comes from, and to feel 'spiritual' in the face of beauty or experience, whether we believe in a god or not.
I once read an analogy where science and religion are climbing different sides of the same mountain in their attempts to explain life, the universe and everything, and if they ever meet at the top, neither will have all the answers. Anyway that's it for now, got to take the dogs out....

@fmf said
As far as I am aware, 'science' has still got a long way to go to explain human consciousness.

I think we often give human consciousness airs and graces when in actuality it’s the same as a dogs consciousness. It’s a mixture of curiosity and a survival instinct. What more do you need to create gods and afterlife’s. Long before monotheism reared it’s head we had gods and afterlife’s.
Consciousness is a functionality not a gift from the gods or an end in itself.

@bigdoggproblem said
@divegeester
I still don't agree with your last sentence. We're probably at an impasse there.

Yeah I think so.

It’s all about definitions again. I define spirituality as the being part of metaphysical universe (assuming there is such a thing) where spirits exist, human spirits rather than the ubiquitous ‘having spirit’ i.e. linked to personality.

I suppose my challenge is that some atheists want to claim the word “spirituality” in order to remain hold of the more ethereal aspects of mindfulness. Which of itself is good thing, I just object to the term “spirituality” being used to describe such meditative processes.

@divegeester said
Yeah I think so.

It’s all about definitions again. I define spirituality as the being part of metaphysical universe (assuming there is such a thing) where spirits exist, human spirits rather than the ubiquitous ‘having spirit’ i.e. linked to personality.

I suppose my challenge is that some atheists want to claim the word “spirituality” in order to remain hold of ...[text shortened]... od thing, I just object to the term “spirituality” being used to describe such meditative processes.

Well, 'spirituality' is just a word, use another word if you want, but us atheists have our 'spiritual' moments as well, which is really just another and very mysterious aspect of brain function. It doesn't seem to matter what you're doing, either, I can have moments of enlightenment or inspiration when I'm ironing a pair of trousers...

And then of course there's creativity, which we have over the beasts of the field, from whence comes this? We are inspired and driven to create works of art and so on, to represent ideas and images of the world to the world, which serves no function other than to be creative. ( We could get by quite well enough without the Mona Lisa or the Taj Mahal) With me in my small way it's writing, if I don't write something for a few days I get twitchy, (not literally but you know what I mean) , it seems to be something which I need to do to fulfill some inner something or another.
There's a lot to talk about once you break open the chestnut...

@divegeester said
I define spirituality as the being part of metaphysical universe (assuming there is such a thing) where spirits exist, human spirits rather than the ubiquitous ‘having spirit’ i.e. linked to personality.

You can use the words "religion", "mysticism", "theism" and even "superstition" [in its non-pejorative 'belief in supenatural causality' sense] to refer to all this stuff.

I think my proposed 'unified' [and still pending at the OED New Definitions Office] definition of "spirituality" gets to the heart of the actual origin of both belief and disbelief, i.e. the curiosity and capacities that define the human spirit.

I read about a study on what is actually happening in the brain during "spiritual" moments. At the core, it involves suspending one's sense of individuality and feeling a part of something larger.

If this is right, then it seems possible for many different people to have "spiritual" experiences, with or without the presence of the supernatural.

@indonesia-phil said
Well, 'spirituality' is just a word, use another word if you want,

All words are just “a word”.

My point is that those who don’t believe in the metaphysical, who don’t believe in spirits, who don’t believe in the spiritual realm, and yet use the word spiritual to describe a very much natural cognitive process, are in fact the people who should “use a different word”.

@bigdoggproblem said
I read about a study on what is actually happening in the brain during "spiritual" moments. At the core, it involves suspending one's sense of individuality and feeling a part of something larger.

If this is right, then it seems possible for many different people to have "spiritual" experiences, with or without the presence of the supernatural.

The experiences you describe are legitimate, I am convinced of that.

To describe an experience as “spiritual” when one doesn’t believe in spirits, the spiritual realm, in the metaphysical universe or the supernatural, is an example of mild delusion in my honest opinion, one driven by an affection of the word “spiritual” and the affectations associated with it.

@fmf said
I think my proposed 'unified' [and still pending at the OED New Definitions Office] definition of "spirituality" gets to the heart of the actual origin of both belief and disbelief, i.e. the curiosity and capacities that define the human spirit.

I disagree. I think that using an adjective which is associated with the supernatural to describe a state of mind which is natural is a misnomer.

@divegeester said
All words are just “a word”.

My point is that those who don’t believe in the metaphysical, who don’t believe in spirits, who don’t believe in the spiritual realm, and yet use the word spiritual to describe a very much natural cognitive process, are in fact the people who should “use a different word”.

Okay so since this is such a big issue for you, which word would you like us to use, so that we can get back to discussing the broader subject?