Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Hereandnow]

Lagayscienza wrote

If it is true that consciousness is produced by the brain as a result of neurological processes, then the benefits one gets from meditation must also be a result of what’s happening in the brain. It would have nothing to do with the tuning into some posited supernatural realm or some universal consciousness. And if this is so, I’m not sure how I could call myself a "spiritual atheist". I’d be just an atheist who practices meditation. But I’m ok with that. I don’t require more. And it's not clear to me why anyone else requires more either. Can anyone explain this to me.

It wouldn't be a matter of tuning into something else, but realizing that the "where one is" on a daily basis of living and breathing and understanding, is not what it seems. Metaphysics begins with me and this cup on the table, a relation that holds the entirety of philosophical possibilities within its analysis. Ask this simple question: how is it that anything "out there" can get "in here" (pointing to my head)? Most ignore this, but the relation is impossible, for causality is in no way epistemic, that is, a knowledge relation is in no way explained by giving a causal account. Something Neil DeGrasse forgets to mention likely because he never thought about it.

[Lagayascienza]

Yes, we see through a glass darkly. There is me and, in front of me is a cup on a table. If I ask: How is it that anything "out there" can get "in here" (pointing to my head)? I can only say that, in the first instance, it gets in through my visual system, and via my sense of touch should I pick the cup up. I could then know the colour of the cup, its size and shape, etcetera. I could then find out more about the cup with extensions of my senses. I could weigh it. I could work out its mass. I could look at its surface through a microscope, I could discover what elements is composed of, I could (in principle) calculate how many atoms the cup is made of, its energy, its wave-function… There is a lot about the cup I could know, and I know how I can know it. I could then relate all that I know about the cup. But of course, those would just be words, and not the cup itself. But I don’t understand what the philosophical significance of this last statement would be.

If it is something like, “Yes, you can describe the cup, relate its attributes, but you can’t know the cup in its underlying “cup-ness”, then I can only say that that is not surprising? Not even the cup knows that. It cannot know anything. But I, the conscious being who is perceiving the cup, who has a good idea of his underlying “I-ness”, can know that the cup exists, and know as much about as many of its attributes I might care to find out about. What I know about cups in general, and what I can know about this particular cup, is enough for me to say that it is real, that it exits in space and time and that it’s attributes are as I have related, attributes which can be checked by other conscious beings like me. I don’t see any ontological or epistemological problem here. Unless I have misunderstood something (which is often the case) there seems to be no metaphysical mystery. If there is something mysterious in all this, I would very much like to know what it is. And I would like to know how it relates to "spirituality" so that I, as an atheist, can see, decide whether there is something discordant about my practicing meditation.

[Sculptor1]

Yes, we see through a glass darkly. There is me and, in front of me is a cup on a table. If I ask: How is it that anything "out there" can get "in here" (pointing to my head)? I can only say that, in the first instance, it gets in through my visual system, and via my sense of touch should I pick the cup up. I could then know the colour of the cup, its size and shape, etcetera.

The question is sort of backwards, since from your POV the "cup" starts in your head.
Even before you know a word for "cup" objects in the world are really things in perception, which a childish brain first has to interpret as a thing in itself, separate from the data of it we have. This is a long process.
By the time the word for cup is know it, the idea of a cup which is not endogenous is continually used to interpret the word in anticipation of cups because our minds are structured with cupness as part of our internalised reality. But calling it internalised is confusing for the process and we should never forget that the world as we understand it is within , and continually externalised.
Novel objects can only be apprended within a now pre-existing framework.

WIth material object this rarely is problematic. But can easily be demonstrated with optical illusions, which easily fool the mind into seeing things not as they really are. The inside of a mask illusion is one such example. Faces are always outwards, not inwards. Faces in particular are even pre-loaded, as there is a are of the brain dedicated to face recognition from birth. When we see a visage we see more than the physicality of it we see a preprogrammed, emphasised, exaggerated - we have facial recognition hard ware from birth. We see them in tree bark, ceilings, and clouds.

When it becomes relly problematic is when we have become programmed to see a "black" face, or an Arab face (in the case of a white person) as a untrustworthy or fearful object.
More subtley we see the world in political terms prejudging on the basic of political chirality.

I was called a left-wing, jew-hating, Democrat on another forum for repeating the facts of the foundation of Isreal. that was a response to rpeating a truth. What the speaker did was use a convenient pidgeon hol into which he could safely categorise me whist ignoring the killing of innocent children in Palestine.

[Lagayascienza]

Thanks,Sculptor1, that's interesting.

With novel objects, wouldn't the data I am sensing, say the colour or shape of a novel object, have to get to my brain from the object before I sense it. I mean the object can be there, in existence, before I see it. It's existence does not depend on my perceiving it. Just like the moon and stars are still there even though on a cloudy night and we cannot see them. So, with novel objects, do you still say they start in our heads? Can you explain this a bit more.

I was very interested to read about faces being preloaded and how these preloads, through later programming, can be modified to negatively affect how we feel about certain face types. I saw so much of this in the small town where I grew up. Many people seem programmed to see an indigenous face and to instantly load a heap of negative connotations onto the person to whom the face belonged. I mean, they didn't even now the person. Just the colour and shape of the face was enough to prejudice their view of the person.

With the abuse on the other site, I think it's people seeing what they want to see in the Middle East and blinding themselves to the rest. The facts are the facts about the Arab-Israeli conflict. I hope the history will recorded accurately.

[Pattern-chaser]

Then what is spirituality really about, in your view?

In the simplest and most approximate terms, couldn't we see spirituality as a diluted, and much wider-ranging, version of religion? I don't mean to offend atheists by saying that, but only to offer a simple definition that might help? Description is difficult because religion, spirituality, emotion, and countless other things/qualities, are non-physical. That is perhaps their prime defining characteristic? They can't be seen or measured, but only imagined and described.

[Lagayascienza]

Lagayscienza wrote

If it is true that consciousness is produced by the brain as a result of neurological processes, then the benefits one gets from meditation must also be a result of what’s happening in the brain. It would have nothing to do with the tuning into some posited supernatural realm or some universal consciousness. And if this is so, I’m not sure how I could call myself a "spiritual atheist". I’d be just an atheist who practices meditation. But I’m ok with that. I don’t require more. And it's not clear to me why anyone else requires more either. Can anyone explain this to me.

It wouldn't be a matter of tuning into something else, but realizing that the "where one is" on a daily basis of living and breathing and understanding, is not what it seems. Metaphysics begins with me and this cup on the table, a relation that holds the entirety of philosophical possibilities within its analysis. Ask this simple question: how is it that anything "out there" can get "in here" (pointing to my head)? Most ignore this, but the relation is impossible, for causality is in no way epistemic, that is, a knowledge relation is in no way explained by giving a causal account. Something Neil DeGrasse forgets to mention likely because he never thought about it.

Thanks Hereandnow. I've never read Neil DeGrasse. I take it he is a thorough-going materialist.

Can I ask exactly what you mean when you say that causality is in no way epistemic? I'm not sure, but I take it to mean that the way we find out about stuff has no bearing on what stuff actually is. I can see this may be true, up to a point. I mean, I can look at the cup, pick it up etc, be aware of its colour, shape, weight, and learn all I can about it in that way, yet not have any idea of its history or about all the atoms and subatomic particles of which it is made. But I can delve deeper. I could find out about its history, and with technology get a better physical understanding of it. Are you saying that if I were to learn the history of this cup, an all I can from my senses (and technological extensions thereof) about the cup, and that even if I could zoom down to the indivisible subatomic particles and fields from which the cup is made and could even know its wave function, that there would still be something important to know about the cup? If so, would you explain what that might be?

[Lagayascienza]

Then what is spirituality really about, in your view?

In the simplest and most approximate terms, couldn't we see spirituality as a diluted, and much wider-ranging, version of religion? I don't mean to offend atheists by saying that, but only to offer a simple definition that might help? Description is difficult because religion, spirituality, emotion, and countless other things/qualities, are non-physical. That is perhaps their prime defining characteristic? They can't be seen or measured, but only imagined and described.

Pattern-chaser, I am interested in what you say about non-physical things. Does the fact that they cannot be seen have to mean that they are mysterious? Inexplicable?

Could it not be the case that these things that are non-physical but mental are just our brains doing what brains do. There are things other than religion that brains construct that, unlike like rocks or cups, are non-physical, and that we don’t see as mysterious. Language for example. I don’t mean written language but the language that we know in our heads, language whose structure and rules we did not need to actively learn when we were babies and toddlers but which we acquired effortlessly because our brains evolved to be language ready at birth and perhaps loaded with a “deep grammar". For all its immateriality, we can do wonderful stuff with language even though it exists only as patterns in a neural substrate. But it’s not mysterious. Similarly, our “non-material” minds are just what brains do. Are not minds processes that arise in a evolved physical substrates as complex as brains. The same goes for emotions, and for moralizing and aesthetic appreciation, which are common to all humanity. I don’t understand what people find mysterious about this. Why does it have to emanate from some spiritual realm. Why do people want our brains to be antennas that log into some mysterious universal consciousness for which, as far as I know, there is not the slightest evidence? That would a mystery if we couldn't come up with possible reasons for it and potentially testable theories to explain it. But we can.

[Lagayascienza]

I'm sorry that my proof reading is not what it should be. In the above post there are half a dozen question marks I inadvertently omitted and whose absence I missed on re-reading.

[chewybrian]

Could it not be the case that these things that are non-physical but mental are just our brains doing what brains do. There are things other than religion that brains construct that, unlike like rocks or cups, are non-physical, and that we don’t see as mysterious. Language for example. I don’t mean written language but the language that we know in our heads, language whose structure and rules we did not need to actively learn when we were babies and toddlers but which we acquired effortlessly because our brains evolved to be language ready at birth and perhaps loaded with a “deep grammar". For all its immateriality, we can do wonderful stuff with language even though it exists only as patterns in a neural substrate. But it’s not mysterious. Similarly, our “non-material” minds are just what brains do. Are not minds processes that arise in a evolved physical substrates as complex as brains. The same goes for emotions, and for moralizing and aesthetic appreciation, which are common to all humanity. I don’t understand what people find mysterious about this.

Let me compare three things: my coffee cup, an ocean wave, and my consciousness.

The coffee cup is material, and it will break if I throw it at the wall, or heat up if I fill it with hot coffee, etc. It's all cause and effect for the cup, and I presume we all know the implications of that.

The ocean wave is only a concept. The wave is only our way of bundling what we perceive and making quick sense of it. The water is moving in response to wind and changes in temperature and fish swimming or whatever. The wave is not really a thing at all; it has no mass, fills no space, and has no experience.

My consciousness does have its own properties, though. It experiences things and has its own ideas which I might attempt to share (though not with the wave or the coffee cup, eh?). My consciousness can also act upon the outside world (with mixed results) in ways that the wave or the cup could not.

So, I submit that of these three things, only the coffee cup is material. The wave and me are in a different category, and the wave is really only a subset of me. The wave is not material in the same sense that dots, lines and planes are not, since they occupy no space, exert no force of their own, etc. They are only concepts for us to use. So, what you might want to call the 'effects of material things' is nothing more than my noticing material things. The only things that exist are the material things and me. So, you've not solved the dilemma by differentiating between the wave and me, or comparing the wave to me, because the wave is me.

Your burden is to explain the critical difference between my thoughts, feelings, emotions, desires and opinions and the coffee cup, and there the difference is clear and stark. You can't get any traction, though, because all the stuff that adds up to me is like the wave, the dot, the line and the plane. There is nothing to measure for anyone but me. All you can see, if you are lucky, is correlation, and correlation does not equate with cause and effect. You have only theory and a wishful desire to package everything into a box that fits your understanding instead of admitting, as a philosopher must, that there is much you do not know.

I quoted this earlier in this thread in a side discussion, but it applies perfectly:

Agnosticism, in fact, is not a creed, but a method, the essence of which lies in the rigorous application of a single principle... the fundamental axiom of modern science... In matters of the intellect, follow your reason as far as it will take you, without regard to any other consideration... In matters of the intellect, do not pretend that conclusions are certain which are not demonstrated or demonstrable., Thomas Henry Huxley

That would a mystery if we couldn't come up with possible reasons for it and potentially testable theories to explain it. But we can.

As Sculptor would say: "rubbish!" Show one that is not correlation, or one that can be proven or falsified.

[Hereandnow]

Lagayscienza wrote
Can I ask exactly what you mean when you say that causality is in no way epistemic? I'm not sure, but I take it to mean that the way we find out about stuff has no bearing on what stuff actually is. I can see this may be true, up to a point. I mean, I can look at the cup, pick it up etc, be aware of its colour, shape, weight, and learn all I can about it in that way, yet not have any idea of its history or about all the atoms and subatomic particles of which it is made. But I can delve deeper. I could find out about its history, and with technology get a better physical understanding of it. Are you saying that if I were to learn the history of this cup, an all I can from my senses (and technological extensions thereof) about the cup, and that even if I could zoom down to the indivisible subatomic particles and fields from which the cup is made and could even know its wave function, that there would still be something important to know about the cup? If so, would you explain what that might be?

I suppose I don't really disagree with what Cheybrain wrote, only I keep the matter closer to the original intuition: I get the question from Rorty, in an interview he did, when he flatly said, I don't see how anything out there could get in here. Why is this statement so powerful? The long anser is, take a look at a pragmatist's theory of knowledge: what is known is simply what works! So when you say, there is a cat! we make the analytic move away from the cat-thing over there, and toward the relation between me and the cat. This is expressed in what is essentially the scientific method, the simple conditional statement expressed in a forward looking equation, as in, If I encounter an object of such and such appearance, THEN it is a cat. What is nitro glycerin?: IF it impacts a surface at a certain velocity, THEN is will explode; and you can add all the technical details you like, but the point is that the object before you is a temporal entity, an event, and nitro is really "nitroING" when I see it and use it, and though this is the essence of the scientific method, it is certainly not the scientist's world (Neil DeGrasse Tyson's). This is Heraclitus' world.

One can look up the hypothetical deductive method which describes this. One does not go into setting in which nitro glycerin is in play (as Derrida put it) without already knowing about what to expect, and this expectation IS the knowledge of the nitro! That is the point. To know is not about some object over there, rather, the over thereness and everything else is part of an anticipatory temporal structure that that is essentially of this IF....THEN...anticipation of what will happen in various approaches and pov's. Reality is a forward looking body of possible events. There simply is NO talk about the object independent of the pragmatic knowing, and so no dualism at the level of ontology. No dualism, no mind/body. All there is, is reduced to a time dynamic. Subjective time, which goes back to Augustine's Confessions, through Kant and his Transcendental Aesthetic, and then the whole tradition.

Anyway, that is the long way to go, and it is as long as one has the time to sit and read. The easy route, and most effective, for me, is simple as can be: first ask how I know the cat is on the couch, and the typical answer can be that I see the cat there, and this moves to an account of the electromagnetic spectrum, how some wavelengths are absorbed while others reflected, and how the totality of these that reach the eye are brought into a matrix of neuronal systems which create an image of what is out there, and this is coupled with other systems that construct the cognition for recognition, a nd so on, and most think this sort of thing is adequate for understanding that there is a cat there. And they are right, if one is to stay in the sane and stable world of science. But if philosophy is asking the question, one has to explain how, that out there is in even the remotest way the neuronal manifestation. And if the game turns to some physicalist view of brains and res extensa things in the world, then it gets much, much worse. For now the question is, how is it that these neuronal systems "are" the very thoughts I am thinking to conceive of them as neuronal systems? Why doesn't the entire worlds collapse into this impossible reduction? You know, it does!

This actually gets very interesting. Rorty revels in this. For now we face the analytic philosopher's premise that the reason we have to think as the scienctist and naturalist does, and affirm some kind of physicalism, materialism (differences here hardly matter) is that this is the only wheel that rolls. This is all.

But they have made not one scintilla of progress to explaining how anything out there gets in here. Causality, any model you can imagine, does not deliver my cat into the brain thing, and they are entirely and irrevocably separate. I like Rorty on this: I no more know this cat is on the couch than an offending guard rail knows the dent in my fender! Causality has absolutely nothing epistemic about it.

This si why phenomenology is the only recourse in basic question like this.

[Sculptor1]

Thanks,Sculptor1, that's interesting.

With novel objects, wouldn't the data I am sensing, say the colour or shape of a novel object, have to get to my brain from the object before I sense it. I mean the object can be there, in existence, before I see it. It's existence does not depend on my perceiving it. Just like the moon and stars are still there even though on a cloudy night and we cannot see them. So, with novel objects, do you still say they start in our heads? Can you explain this a bit more.

Indeed, but have you ever seen something you first interrepted as something else?
I'm not saying it depends on you seeing it. I am saying that a cup depends on your definitions, since cupness is not in the universe by a cultural object. One imagines that an alien would not distinguish other ceramic objects from cups; it may not have any interest in ceramics and might have a "trash" category for such things.
It's worth picking up on colour here. SInce colour is not in nature. It is the body's response to differences in light wavelengths. It is possible that an alien may never understand that. (re: sci-fi novel "Colors of Space"), or an alien might "hear" what we call colours. Or have a completely enigmatic means of perception that we could never have access to. Why are there separate and distinct colours? In reality the spectrum is an unbroken analgoue; not divided by ROYGBIV. Whilst we migh imagine how a bat "sees" in the dark we can never feel what it is like to orient ourselves by sound waves. Yet dolphins do not bump into things that are not otherwise visible.
Again, I am not denying that the external world exists. I am saying that we have an ideosyncratic way of perceiving it, common to most creatures on earth since we share an evolutionary process - this is not THE way. It may be one of many.

I was very interested to read about faces being preloaded and how these preloads, through later programming, can be modified to negatively affect how we feel about certain face types. I saw so much of this in the small town where I grew up. Many people seem programmed to see an indigenous face and to instantly load a heap of negative connotations onto the person to whom the face belonged. I mean, they didn't even now the person. Just the colour and shape of the face was enough to prejudice their view of the person.

A face that is markedly different from those around is likely to ilicite a "alien" response. But the quality - that is the specific face is not preloaded. People have to learn prejudice. The facial recognition hardware is generalised - a tabula rasa. The evolutionary logic is to recognise and record faces. A face in the bushes might be a predator; or a friend. But something looking at you needs a regognition and response!

There are instances where this system is damaged. People know what a face is, they can see faces, but they are incapable of recognising Hitler or their own mother. But they can see the eyes, nose mouth but no recognition. They are otherwise visually perfect.
There is something compelling about the configuration of eyes, nose, mouth and we are increadibly skilled to remember the most tiny differences. A mother can easily tell the difference between her identical twins ,as can many others when they spend time with them.

With the abuse on the other site, I think it's people seeing what they want to see in the Middle East and blinding themselves to the rest. The facts are the facts about the Arab-Israeli conflict. I hope the history will recorded accurately.

HA. No history is never accurate. I have a BA and MA in history. There is no objective truth here. The first casualty of war is the truth.
When words like "animal", "terrorstist" and "freedom fighter" are bandied about to describe EXACTY the same thing; when "dead babies" and "innocent victims" are also called "human shields" or "collateral damage" truth has long flown out of the window. Can Netanyahu see a crying covered in dust and blood, child who now has no mother in the same way as his shell shocked sister? Has he even the courage to look on his deeds?

And what are you? Are you a consumer, a pedestrian, a motorist, a voter, a student, a worker.. What are you today? And to whom are you?

[Hereandnow]

Pattern-chaser wrote
In the simplest and most approximate terms, couldn't we see spirituality as a diluted, and much wider-ranging, version of religion? I don't mean to offend atheists by saying that, but only to offer a simple definition that might help? Description is difficult because religion, spirituality, emotion, and countless other things/qualities, are non-physical. That is perhaps their prime defining characteristic? They can't be seen or measured, but only imagined and described.

You mean something like an interfaith movement? They do exist, this kind of, every mountain may be different, but they all climb upward. This sounds like the wider-ranging version you might be talking about.

It can be argued that the matter of religion can indeed be "measured" if by this you mean turned into an objective argument. All one has to fo is determine what it is in religion that is clear to all independently of the subjective loose cannons. Then we could agree on what it is. So, is there a way that one can conceive of the essence of religion, and agree? I say there is. It is this: religion is the metaphysical indeterminacy of our ethics and aesthetics. Brief, but to the point. You know, there you are, family crushed to death by Russian tanks right before your very eyes, and you raise your fist to heaven and scream, W.T.F.?? This is the kind of thing that needs fleshing out to understand religion, this dimension of being in the world that Wittgenstein called value, the affectivities of our existence are not facts, says Witt., Mr. Rorty counted to a hundred is parsecs away from Mr. Rorty was buried alive. Both are facts, of course, but the one has the terror and agony, and these are off the radar when conceived apart from the contexts of general discussion, like, well, he deserved it because he did such and such, or soldiers being legitimate targets in war (coercing information?). No. The question here is OUT of all conceivable contexts, and there is simply nothing to say, no accountablity. There is a great book by Simon Critchley called Very Little, Almost Nothing, in which he describes philosophy as that which kills all hope. For here, when inquiry goes deep into the screaming horrors that emphatically insist on redemption, there is nothing to find. Philosophy tells us there is nothing. Religion tells us there is something.

But is the religious affirmation just blind faith? No, I argue, nothing blind about it.

[Lagayascienza]

You're right about history,Sculptor1. It cannot be objective because humans cannot be objective. What has occurred gets filtered through the writer's subjectivity. So, what gets recorded, and the meaning given to what is recorded, depends a lot on who writes it. History can be interesting, and perhaps somewhat instructive, to read. All the dates and places and names may be correct, but when we read it, we are not doing much more than reading an historical novel.

[Stoppelmann]

You mean something like an interfaith movement? They do exist, this kind of, every mountain may be different, but they all climb upward. This sounds like the wider-ranging version you might be talking about.

It can be argued that the matter of religion can indeed be "measured" if by this you mean turned into an objective argument. All one has to fo is determine what it is in religion that is clear to all independently of the subjective loose cannons. Then we could agree on what it is. So, is there a way that one can conceive of the essence of religion, and agree? I say there is. It is this: religion is the metaphysical indeterminacy of our ethics and aesthetics. Brief, but to the point. You know, there you are, family crushed to death by Russian tanks right before your very eyes, and you raise your fist to heaven and scream, W.T.F.?? This is the kind of thing that needs fleshing out to understand religion, this dimension of being in the world that Wittgenstein called value, the affectivities of our existence are not facts, says Witt., Mr. Rorty counted to a hundred is parsecs away from Mr. Rorty was buried alive. Both are facts, of course, but the one has the terror and agony, and these are off the radar when conceived apart from the contexts of general discussion, like, well, he deserved it because he did such and such, or soldiers being legitimate targets in war (coercing information?). No. The question here is OUT of all conceivable contexts, and there is simply nothing to say, no accountablity. There is a great book by Simon Critchley called Very Little, Almost Nothing, in which he describes philosophy as that which kills all hope. For here, when inquiry goes deep into the screaming horrors that emphatically insist on redemption, there is nothing to find. Philosophy tells us there is nothing. Religion tells us there is something.

But is the religious affirmation just blind faith? No, I argue, nothing blind about it.

What I understand as non-religious spirituality involves exploring and experiencing a sense of meaning, purpose, and connection to something greater than oneself, and doesn’t require adhering to traditional religious beliefs or practices. But non-religious spirituality often depends on an individual's personal beliefs and values and therefore asks where we acquire them. It is sometimes difficult to say where a historical religious tradition stops and non-religion takes over.

The most immediate way people find a sense of spiritual connection is by immersing themselves in nature, spending time in natural settings, appreciating the beauty of the natural world, and feeling a sense of awe and interconnectedness with the environment. This is of course dependent upon having basic needs fulfilled, and having no necessities, afflictions, or dangers. I would suggest that most religions grew under such beneficial conditions, speculating upon the drama they saw unfolding in the natural world.

Non-religious spirituality, as a sense of shared humanity and purpose, can be found in the bonds and connections with other people, promoting acts of kindness, empathy, and community engagement. Acts of service and altruism can create a sense of fulfilment and spiritual connectedness by helping others and contributing to the well-being of the world. Equally, engaging in creative activities, such as art, music, or writing, can be a source of spiritual expression and a way to tap into deeper emotions and feelings which a community can share.

However, the journey of self-discovery, personal growth, and self-improvement can also be a deeply spiritual experience for some. It involves exploring one's values, passions, and potential. Practices like mindfulness and meditation can help individuals connect with their inner selves and the present moment have long been independent of religious tradition. These practices are often associated with a sense of inner peace, self-awareness, and transcendence of everyday concerns. The Stoics, practised various forms of self-examination, reflection, and meditation, as did Eastern philosophical traditions like Taoist and Confucian philosophers in ancient China. While Buddhism and Hinduism are known for their meditation practices, in the Christian and Jewish mystical traditions, not all mystical practices were strictly tied to religious orthodoxy.

Non-religious individuals often find spiritual meaning in the exploration of philosophy, ethics, and the search for purpose through the lens of human reason and rationality. For some, an understanding and appreciation of the wonders of the natural world, as revealed through science, can be a source of non-religious spirituality. It doesn't necessarily require a belief in the supernatural or a higher power, but it does involve a recognition of the profound and meaningful aspects of human existence and the world we live in.

[Lagayascienza]

Pattern-chaser wrote
In the simplest and most approximate terms, couldn't we see spirituality as a diluted, and much wider-ranging, version of religion? I don't mean to offend atheists by saying that, but only to offer a simple definition that might help? Description is difficult because religion, spirituality, emotion, and countless other things/qualities, are non-physical. That is perhaps their prime defining characteristic? They can't be seen or measured, but only imagined and described.

You mean something like an interfaith movement? They do exist, this kind of, every mountain may be different, but they all climb upward. This sounds like the wider-ranging version you might be talking about.

It can be argued that the matter of religion can indeed be "measured" if by this you mean turned into an objective argument. All one has to fo is determine what it is in religion that is clear to all independently of the subjective loose cannons. Then we could agree on what it is. So, is there a way that one can conceive of the essence of religion, and agree? I say there is. It is this: religion is the metaphysical indeterminacy of our ethics and aesthetics. Brief, but to the point. You know, there you are, family crushed to death by Russian tanks right before your very eyes, and you raise your fist to heaven and scream, W.T.F.?? This is the kind of thing that needs fleshing out to understand religion, this dimension of being in the world that Wittgenstein called value, the affectivities of our existence are not facts, says Witt., Mr. Rorty counted to a hundred is parsecs away from Mr. Rorty was buried alive. Both are facts, of course, but the one has the terror and agony, and these are off the radar when conceived apart from the contexts of general discussion, like, well, he deserved it because he did such and such, or soldiers being legitimate targets in war (coercing information?). No. The question here is OUT of all conceivable contexts, and there is simply nothing to say, no accountablity. There is a great book by Simon Critchley called Very Little, Almost Nothing, in which he describes philosophy as that which kills all hope. For here, when inquiry goes deep into the screaming horrors that emphatically insist on redemption, there is nothing to find. Philosophy tells us there is nothing. Religion tells us there is something.

But is the religious affirmation just blind faith? No, I argue, nothing blind about it.

I don't understand this, Hereandnow. You say philosophy tells us there is nothing. And you say that religion tells us there is something. But what is this something that religion actually tell us? And why should we believe it? You say that religious affirmation is not just blind faith. Can you enlarge on that? If it is more than just blind faith, what is this "more". I'd like to understand what you mean. And then I'd like to ask whether, even if religion were just a matter of blind faith, would that matter?