to all the atheist on sciforums
- Thread starter geeser
- Start date
ohh ok,
I think there is some in-built need. I could not say if it was simply a product of our social needs, or if it was a stand-alone mechanism to satisfy our thrust for truth.
I lean toward the position that it is a mechanism that is designed (through evolution, not ID) to keep offspring close to parents that has a side effect when combined with the ability to comprehend and communicate complex ideas.
I think there is some in-built need. I could not say if it was simply a product of our social needs, or if it was a stand-alone mechanism to satisfy our thrust for truth.
I lean toward the position that it is a mechanism that is designed (through evolution, not ID) to keep offspring close to parents that has a side effect when combined with the ability to comprehend and communicate complex ideas.
When born we are a vacuous space between 2 ears. Its only later that the cockamamie idea of spirituality is introduced to you by some adult who plants the seed in your mind. You either go with the flow or come to your senses.
No such 'innate' need. What people are mis-recognizing here is a desire for grandeur, for connectedness. Civilization divorces mankind from its organic reality; the more advanced a civilization, the greater the disconnect. Interestingly, this idea is nicely corroborated by the simulaneity to be found in the growth of civilizations and religious structures.
glaucon, so you are saying that there is no innate need, there is just a need to be connected to nature which is being misinterpreted as a need for god?
isn't that the same as saying that there is an innate need for god? an innate need for spirituality does not have to have been designed by evolution for that purpose. it may be, as you say, be a side effect of your need to be connected to nature, and our civilization.
I hope you didn't vote no, because you basically said in your post that there is such an innate desire.
isn't that the same as saying that there is an innate need for god? an innate need for spirituality does not have to have been designed by evolution for that purpose. it may be, as you say, be a side effect of your need to be connected to nature, and our civilization.
I hope you didn't vote no, because you basically said in your post that there is such an innate desire.
cato said:
You misunderstand me. There is no need per se, anymore than we have a need to breathe. We are of nature, this no intelligent person can dispute. We are therefore organic, physical, extensions of what nature is. There is nothing innate in this, anymore than mitochondria could be said to 'innately' produce energy. Despite all this, civilized societal existence daily drives us away from this sense of ourselves. Of course, this could never drive us so far as to completely divorce us from nature (unless we somehow figure out how to technologically move beyond the organic), but the distancing itself plays powerfully on our minds. It is this play that is responsible for a sense of 'otherness', or 'smallness'. At least, this awareness occurs to the reflective person...
Definitely a built-in need and a very strong one. Unfortunately the word spiritual sucks because it implies the existence of the nebulous 'spirit' whereas spiritual / spirituality is in reference to deep appreciation of the attractive.
I cannot understand how anybody could believe, we have a need for the spiritual, of the soul, of the religious, of a god, absolutely not, but being at one with ourselves and our enviroment, I personally would not class that as spiritual.
crunchy: sorry cant agree with you, I dont think it has that reference.(only a god reference)
mustafhakofi: being enlightened,(at one) is more an education thing, than a spiritual one.
glaucon: I agree.
PsychoticEpisode : and again, I agree.
mustafhakofi: being enlightened,(at one) is more an education thing, than a spiritual one.
glaucon: I agree.
PsychoticEpisode : and again, I agree.
I think it depends from person to person. Probably a 'belief gene';
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/mai...14.xml&sSheet=/news/2004/11/14/ixnewstop.html
So they'll probably be able to cure it soon. Just think of the benefits to society if they screened for this gene when selecting embyros for fertilisation (I'm in some in-vitro near future utopia now, so bear with me). Screening out people with that gene would mean religions would lose followers, and eventually, we'd all just get on, and stop arguing killing each other over myths, lies, and superstition. Vicars and Priests would have to go and get honest work for a change!
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/mai...14.xml&sSheet=/news/2004/11/14/ixnewstop.html
So they'll probably be able to cure it soon. Just think of the benefits to society if they screened for this gene when selecting embyros for fertilisation (I'm in some in-vitro near future utopia now, so bear with me). Screening out people with that gene would mean religions would lose followers, and eventually, we'd all just get on, and stop arguing killing each other over myths, lies, and superstition. Vicars and Priests would have to go and get honest work for a change!
Heh, if everyone agreed with me the world would be filled to the hilt with Oreo cookies and rabid PSP squirrels 
. I mind not supporting ze claim my friend.
What I don't need to do is get into the whole definition of spirituality for the 'believer'. It's a well known that:
A) Exercising spirituality leads to health benefits (just google it to see loads of medical evidence).
B) Believers agree that the ellusive definition falls into the realm of:
"Meaning – significance of life; making sense of situations; deriving purpose.
Values – beliefs, standards and ethics that are cherished.
Transcendence – experience, awareness, and appreciation of a "transcendent dimension" to life beyond self.
Connecting – increased awareness of a connection with self, others, God/Spirit/Divine, and nature.
Becoming – an unfolding of life that demands reflection and experience; includes a sense of who one is and how one knows."
Now, in all humans there exists at least one thing for any individual that really sets off positive emotional attraction (possibly to a euphoric level). It can be music, animation, memory, odors, creative concepts... you get the idea. Mentally healthy people (both believer and non-believer) have a commonality of deeply appreciating these things in awe, wonder, reflection, amazement, and will cherish them.
Now if believers and non-believers are achieving the same results then we have to take a look at the similarities and differences.
SIMILARITIES: Appreciation of the subjectively attractive
DIFFERENCES: 'God', 'Spirit', 'Soul', Purpose
If we remove the differences then we achieve a concrete definition of a phenomenoa that exists with all humans and indirectly this shows the need to appreciate the attractive. Now why label it with the word spirituality? For one the common interpretation of the word is ambiguous, it shares similarities and results with non-believers, and it's easily adapted to a concrete definition based on this. It makes a little more sense at this point that spirituality is natural and present with everyone... it's just poorly defined in mainstream language because of 'Divine' implication.
. I mind not supporting ze claim my friend. What I don't need to do is get into the whole definition of spirituality for the 'believer'. It's a well known that:
A) Exercising spirituality leads to health benefits (just google it to see loads of medical evidence).
B) Believers agree that the ellusive definition falls into the realm of:
"Meaning – significance of life; making sense of situations; deriving purpose.
Values – beliefs, standards and ethics that are cherished.
Transcendence – experience, awareness, and appreciation of a "transcendent dimension" to life beyond self.
Connecting – increased awareness of a connection with self, others, God/Spirit/Divine, and nature.
Becoming – an unfolding of life that demands reflection and experience; includes a sense of who one is and how one knows."
Now, in all humans there exists at least one thing for any individual that really sets off positive emotional attraction (possibly to a euphoric level). It can be music, animation, memory, odors, creative concepts... you get the idea. Mentally healthy people (both believer and non-believer) have a commonality of deeply appreciating these things in awe, wonder, reflection, amazement, and will cherish them.
Now if believers and non-believers are achieving the same results then we have to take a look at the similarities and differences.
SIMILARITIES: Appreciation of the subjectively attractive
DIFFERENCES: 'God', 'Spirit', 'Soul', Purpose
If we remove the differences then we achieve a concrete definition of a phenomenoa that exists with all humans and indirectly this shows the need to appreciate the attractive. Now why label it with the word spirituality? For one the common interpretation of the word is ambiguous, it shares similarities and results with non-believers, and it's easily adapted to a concrete definition based on this. It makes a little more sense at this point that spirituality is natural and present with everyone... it's just poorly defined in mainstream language because of 'Divine' implication.
phlogistician said:
In the article, the words spirituality and religious belief are used interchangeably. That's the problem with ambiguity
. What the finidings do show is that a certain gene can make a person more prone to being a 'believer'. Having a cure for that would rock.Maybe we should petition to ban him?
I wouldn't call it a need, more of a default setting for the human mind. Life gives us an incomplete data set, spirituality, religion, etc. helps fill in the holes and interpret it. Something happens we don't understand, so we make up stories.
I wonder, are people more likely to be born with a scientific outlook, or a religious one? Or, as thinking machines, religion is a product of logic?
I wonder, are people more likely to be born with a scientific outlook, or a religious one? Or, as thinking machines, religion is a product of logic?
I would question the logic, of any atheist, who could possibly believe we have a need for gods, this was the theist position, in another thread, that drew geeser to post this, however geeser have you worded it correctly.
diogene's dog stated this "we may be born having a very direct experience of God."and this "And as for our persistent inbuilt craving for God" and then this knowledge of the existence of something we cannot penetrate, of the manifestations of the profoundest reason and the most radiant beauty . You seemed to think this idea was "rubbish" and a "supposition" when I proposed it."then he said "need for the spiritual" his meaning for this was and is purely religious, however some of the atheist on here who choose yes, I dont believe they meant "religious need".
if they did then how can they call themselves atheist.
diogene's dog stated this "we may be born having a very direct experience of God."and this "And as for our persistent inbuilt craving for God" and then this knowledge of the existence of something we cannot penetrate, of the manifestations of the profoundest reason and the most radiant beauty . You seemed to think this idea was "rubbish" and a "supposition" when I proposed it."then he said "need for the spiritual" his meaning for this was and is purely religious, however some of the atheist on here who choose yes, I dont believe they meant "religious need".
if they did then how can they call themselves atheist.