Seems this forum has gone adrift. At least to my way of thinking. A lot of discussion being made, but with little or no spiritual premise or content. So...
I pose these questions: what, if any, difference is there between the supernatural and the spiritual?
Is Spirit a supernatural thing? Or is the term 'spiritual' just an adjective, a word used to describe a wistful concept, but without supernatural substance?
Or, does that which is spiritual contain supernatural substance not perceivable by the physical senses?
I assert that if what is 'spiritual' has no supernatural substance (imperceptible by the physical senses), then it's just a dream, a fantasy or a delusion.
But on the other hand, if that which is supernatural is 'spiritual', and has substance not physically perceived, how then is it known?
06 Oct 20
@secondson saidI think that "the supernatural" (the existence of which cannot be established or proven by science and the laws of nature that humans have discovered) is something that humans are inclined to speculate about because of their spiritual nature, their curiosity and their capacity for abstraction. It is from this speculation that theism and beliefs about origins and creator beings and religious ideas [like everlasting life] are derived.
I pose these questions: what, if any, difference is there between the supernatural and the spiritual?
06 Oct 20
@secondson saidI understand why people think it is but pondering of this question has led me to believe that the only "spirit" that exists is the human spirit and that closely related "spiritual" concepts such as the "soul" are in fact merely a way of trying to encapsulate what our individual identities and unique moral compasses are.
I pose these questions: Is Spirit a supernatural thing?
Our capacity to perceive each other as identities adjacent to and interacting with our own and our capacity to affect each other in abstract and metaphysical ways is, I believe, collectively, what the substance of "spirituality" is and I believe it manifests itself in different ways as these capacities lead people to differing deductions and stances about the nature of the reality in which we live.
And I believe that religiosity is one huge aspect of where our each and every human spirit and our collective "spirituality" can take us. I think religious belief rooted in speculation about supernatural things is a philosophical destination, so to speak, that spirituality brings most humans to and ends up making them convinced that that destination is the only thing that "spirituality" is.
@secondson saidThere is no "supernatural". Everything happens according to the laws of physics.
Seems this forum has gone adrift. At least to my way of thinking. A lot of discussion being made, but with little or no spiritual premise or content. So...
I pose these questions: what, if any, difference is there between the supernatural and the spiritual?
Is Spirit a supernatural thing? Or is the term 'spiritual' just an adjective, a word used to describe a wistful co ...[text shortened]... ch is supernatural is 'spiritual', and has substance not physically perceived, how then is it known?
"Spirituality", to me, is the part of human thought that asks questions like, "why am I here?", and "what is the meaning of life?" It can be wistful, but does not necessarily have to be so. Note that these questions are asked by both theists and atheists alike, indicating that this is the "core" of the topic.
06 Oct 20
@bigdoggproblem saidI think that, even if we assume there is a creator entity of some kind, then the "laws of physics" would surely be the most accurate information we have about the nature of that entity and its creation. I don't see religious doctrines and narratives as having a patch on it - with their oddly homogeneous anthropomorphism and all that highly cultural and psychological aspirational stuff.
There is no "supernatural". Everything happens according to the laws of physics.
06 Oct 20
@bigdoggproblem saidDo Atheists ask “why am I here?” and “what is the meaning of life?” I assumed that for atheists the former had been answered in large part by Charles Darwin and that answer made the latter question redundant.
There is no "supernatural". Everything happens according to the laws of physics.
"Spirituality", to me, is the part of human thought that asks questions like, "why am I here?", and "what is the meaning of life?" It can be wistful, but does not necessarily have to be so. Note that these questions are asked by both theists and atheists alike, indicating that this is the "core" of the topic.
06 Oct 20
@kevcvs57 saidSpeaking as an agnostic atheist, I'd say the questions "why am I here?” and “what is the meaning of life?” merge into one and only touch upon the consideration of supernatural "answers" in so far as I entertain the assertions of theists and regularly reassess my non-theist outlook.
Do Atheists ask “why am I here?” and “what is the meaning of life?” I assumed that for atheists the former had been answered in large part by Charles Darwin and that answer made the latter question redundant.
06 Oct 20
@fmf saidI was looking for clarity as a definitely fence sitting Agnostic who thinks that spirituality is either a measurable thing, given the right instruments, or the illusion of it is so intrinsic to the human psyche that it might as well be.
Speaking as an agnostic atheist, I'd say the questions "why am I here?” and “what is the meaning of life?” merge into one and only touch upon the consideration of supernatural "answers" in so far as I entertain the assertions of theists and regularly reassess my non-theist outlook.
07 Oct 20
@kevcvs57 saidDarwin answered some of the question, "how did I get here?"
Do Atheists ask “why am I here?” and “what is the meaning of life?” I assumed that for atheists the former had been answered in large part by Charles Darwin and that answer made the latter question redundant.
Perhaps more precise than "why am I here?" is, "what is my purpose in life?" I would think atheists ask this question.
The second question, to my mind, is not quite the same as the first.
07 Oct 20
@secondson saidI don't see how "the supernatural" is anything other than a kind of possible [or, more to the point, scientifically impossible] 'realm', so to speak, that humans can but speculate about and make assertions about that accord with our religious [or lack of religious beliefs].
I assert that if what is 'spiritual' has no supernatural substance (imperceptible by the physical senses), then it's just a dream, a fantasy or a delusion.
These assertions, and doctrines attendant thereto, do have some substance because they actually affect how people behave and how societies and cultures organize themselves.
So, that's "substance" that is closely related to perceptions of "the supernatural", I suppose.
I don't think "spirituality" needs "the supernatural" to have "substance" because I think ~ when you boil it all down ~ that "spirituality" is about the nature of humans in a very real sense, whilst being about the nature of the universe in a very subjective and conjectural sense.
@secondson saidIt isn't "known". It is a matter of faith.
if that which is supernatural is 'spiritual', and has substance not physically perceived, how then is it known?
What can be "known" is what various religions assert about "the supernatural".
What can be "known" is what people say they believe about "the supernatural" and the reasons they say they believe it.
Beyond that, assertions about "the supernatural" are firmly within the realm of faith and subjectivity and, more to the point perhaps, aspiration.
I believe "spirituality" encompasses BOTH belief and lack of belief in "the supernatural".
I believe the capacities that humans have to explore their beliefs regarding such things are, collectively, "spirituality" and that believing that "the supernatural" is real and that there are divine beings is only one set of conclusions that the human spirit/consciousness can provide us with.
I think it is an error to insist that, because group X believes that "the supernatural" is real, and group Y does not believe that "the supernatural" is real, that this means group Y doesn't "know" something that group X does "know".
I think using the words "know" and "known" in this matter [regarding the conclusions that our spiritual natures lead us to reach] is a kind of wordplay or sophistry.
- Joined
- 14 Mar 15
- Moves
- 29602
07 Oct 20
@kevcvs57 saidI'm not sure Darwin answered the 'why' question. (Had a stab at the 'how' ).
Do Atheists ask “why am I here?” and “what is the meaning of life?” I assumed that for atheists the former had been answered in large part by Charles Darwin and that answer made the latter question redundant.
07 Oct 20
@bigdoggproblem saidI suppose knowledge of ‘how’ doesn’t necessarily take ‘why’ out of the equation but I think there’s a certainty to ‘how’ whilst the need for a why and the why itself are purely speculative.
Darwin answered some of the question, "how did I get here?"
Perhaps more precise than "why am I here?" is, "what is my purpose in life?" I would think atheists ask this question.
The second question, to my mind, is not quite the same as the first.
I can see that it’s reasonable to ask ‘what is a good life’ or ‘what is a productive life’ but I’m not sure many atheists would assume that there is a purpose in life. Wouldn’t that assumption presuppose an entity which would have to assign that purpose.
07 Oct 20
@ghost-of-a-duke saidSorry I meant that if you accept the mechanics of evolution it removes the need for a why although it doesn’t in anyway disprove the existence of a ‘why’.
I'm not sure Darwin answered the 'why' question. (Had a stab at the 'how' ).