19 Jan 14
Spirituality is not synonymous with religiosity. It is a broader term that need not incorporate any notion of a supreme being, and I have to say it wouldn't surprise me if it turns out to be true that spiritual individuals have better mental health. In my line of work, much like the Pythagoreans of old, I find what can only be described as a kind of spiritual satisfaction in the study of mathematics.
19 Jan 14
1 edit
Originally posted by SoothfastIn this context, what do you mean by the word "spirituality"?
Spirituality is not synonymous with religiosity. It is a broader term that need not incorporate any notion of a supreme being, and I have to say it wouldn't surprise me if it turns out to be true that spiritual individuals have better mental health. In my line of work, much like the Pythagoreans of old, I find what can only be described as a kind of spiritual satisfaction in the study of mathematics.
Is it necessarily to do with the belief in something supernatural but not necessarily a god or gods?
If not, is it to merely do with getting some kind of esthetic pleasure from a belief?
If not exactly either of the above, what exactly?
(I am NOT trying to make any kind of point here; I am just genuinely curious )
19 Jan 14
2 edits
Originally posted by humyWell, even Wikipedia says there is no solid definition for the term "spirituality," but for my part, not only do I take it to not necessarily have anything to do with a god of any sort, but also it need not necessarily have anything to do with anything supernatural. Pure mathematics, after all, has no formal relations with "the natural" (i.e. the physical universe), so to speak of a spiritual dimension to pure mathematics does not at all imply anything supernatural. (I loosely define the supernatural as being something that observably affects the physical realm but is not subject to physical laws.)
In this context, what do you mean by the word "spirituality"?
Is it necessarily to do with the belief in something supernatural but not necessarily a god or gods?
If not, is it to merely do with getting some kind of esthetic pleasure from a belief?
If not exactly either of the above, what exactly?
(I am NOT trying to make any kind of point here; I am just genuinely curious )
However, even though there is no tangible connection between pure mathematics and the physical universe, I get a sense that there is a connection. That the universe is mathematics incarnate, and that all life in the universe is interconnected by mathematics in some mysterious way. It's not something I can coherently explain, but I take it to be something of a spiritual experience. Not religious and not magical, but mysterious. And the mystery will always be there, because it has been proven that we can never discover all mathematical knowledge, there are conjectures that can never be proven or disproven, and there are theorems that would take more steps to prove than there are neutrinos in the universe.
Just generally, I would say that spirituality can be any sense of an individual being part of some greater, unified whole. Some great but ineffable truth.
19 Jan 14
Originally posted by Soothfast
Well, even Wikipedia says there is no solid definition for the term "spirituality," but for my part, not only do I take it to not necessarily have anything to do with a god of any sort, but also it need not necessarily have anything to do with anything supernatural. Pure mathematics, after all, has no formal relations with "the natural" (i.e. the physical ...[text shortened]... nse of an individual being part of some greater, unified whole. Some great but ineffable truth.
so to speak of a spiritual dimension to pure mathematics does not at all imply anything supernatural. (I loosely define the supernatural as being something that observably affects the physical realm but is not subject to physical laws.)
If and only if you are implying what I think you are applying here, I think you are using the wrong word there because mathematics, even applied mathematics let alone pure mathematics, doesn't have any observably affects on the physical world but rather merely, if it is applied mathematics, observably describes the physical world, and if it is strictly pure mathematics (“strictly” because you must baring in mind there is considerable overlap between the pure and the applied maths ) , doesn't even do that! This is in part because I would personally generally assume the word “affect” ( and “Effect” ) implies cause-and-effect.
However, even though there is no tangible connection between pure mathematics and the physical universe, I get a sense that there is a connection. That the universe is mathematics incarnate, and that all life in the universe is interconnected by mathematics in some mysterious way. It's not something I can coherently explain, but I take it to be something of a spiritual experience. Not religious and not magical, but mysterious. And the mystery will always be there, because it has been proven that we can never discover all mathematical knowledge, there are conjectures that can never be proven or disproven, and there are theorems that would take more steps to prove than there are neutrinos in the universe.
Just generally, I would say that spirituality can be any sense of an individual being part of some greater, unified whole. Some great but ineffable truth.
I find that a pretty vague description of the word spirituality asp the "It's not something I can coherently explain, but I take it to be something of a spiritual experience." part. I think I am defeated here.
19 Jan 14
Originally posted by humyIs it safe to say I have crushed the "spirit" of one who does not believe in a "soul"? 😉
I find that a pretty vague description of the word spirituality asp the "It's not something I can coherently explain, but I take it to be something of a spiritual experience." part. I think I am defeated here.
I'm not going to knock myself out trying to explain precisely my conception of spirituality, but I do believe genuine atheists can still have genuine spiritual experiences. All that's needed is consciousness. No Bible required, and no Supreme Fascist ruling the Universe with an iron fist.
19 Jan 14
2 edits
Originally posted by Soothfastsince I have absolutely no idea what a "spiritual experience" is or what a "soul" is unless it just merely means "mind" and nothing more, I think I better quit while I am not frustrated else I think I probably will be 🙂
Is it safe to say I have crushed the "spirit" of one who does not believe in a "soul"? 😉
I'm not going to knock myself out trying to explain precisely my conception of spirituality, but I do believe genuine atheists can still have genuine spiritual experiences. All that's needed is consciousness. No Bible required, and no Supreme Fascist ruling the Universe with an iron fist.
19 Jan 14
1 edit
Originally posted by humyWell, let's bring this down to Earth. My foremost point is that, whatever religious types claim to be a "spiritual experience," I think the nonreligious can also experience. There is no need for a god or the supernatural, because what humans experience in life results from mind, emotions, and just consciousness in general, all of which, say, you or I have. The study being cited in the OP, even if its findings are valid, cannot remotely be construed as an endorsement of theism, or an argument in favor of advancing theism in particular as a means of promoting improved mental health.
since I have absolutely no idea what a "spiritual experience" is or what a "soul" is unless it just merely means "mind" and nothing more, I think I better quit while I am not frustrated else I think I probably will be 🙂
It may not be spirituality that the study is finding as being beneficial (are thicker brain sections a good thing?), but rather a sense of purpose, or fulfillment, or just generally a sense of satisfaction in life. Lonely little kids get some fulfillment from having imaginary friends, though, so why should it be any different for adults and their imaginary gods?
22 Jan 14
Originally posted by PatNovakDo you know if these people have psychic abilities?
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/12/30/us-thicker-brain-sections-tied-to-spirit-idUSBRE9BT0LA20131230
"For people at high risk of depression because of a family history, spirituality may offer some protection for the brain, a new study hints."
"Parts of the brain's outer layer, the cortex, were thicker in high-risk study participants who said relig ...[text shortened]... . Does religiosity cause thicker brain sections, or do thicker brain sections cause religiosity?
22 Jan 14
Originally posted by RJHindsObviously I assume that no one involved with the study had psychic abilities, because there is no evidence that anyone has psychic abilities. Why on earth would you ask that? The study is about self-reported religion or spirituality levels compared with outer layer brain thickness. There was no need for psychic powers to perform the experiment, nor was it a test for psychic powers.
Do you know if these people have psychic abilities?
22 Jan 14
Originally posted by PatNovakIt might be possibile that the differences in the brains may be the source of psychic abilities. It seems stupid of the researchers not to have investigated this possibility.
Obviously I assume that no one involved with the study had psychic abilities, because there is no evidence that anyone has psychic abilities. Why on earth would you ask that? The study is about self-reported religion or spirituality levels compared with outer layer brain thickness. There was no need for psychic powers to perform the experiment, nor was it a test for psychic powers.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
22 Jan 14
Originally posted by RJHindsThere are no psychic abilities, and thus it's idiotic to look for a source of them.
It might be possibile that the differences in the brains may be the source of psychic abilities. It seems stupid of the researchers not to have investigated this possibility.
You have to have people with psychic abilities before you can look for their
source.
22 Jan 14
Originally posted by googlefudgeI know you make many assuptions that you believe to be true. However, to assume does not make it true. Even a moron, like me, knows that.
There are no psychic abilities, and thus it's idiotic to look for a source of them.
You have to have people with psychic abilities before you can look for their
source.
22 Jan 14
1 edit
Originally posted by googlefudgeOh no. He is now saying that there exists psychic abilities? That is truly stupid. Well, since this is coming from him, no surprises there.
There are no psychic abilities, and thus it's idiotic to look for a source of them.
You have to have people with psychic abilities before you can look for their
source.