Straw Man argument

Originally posted by thesonofsaul
I was just about to ask the same thing. How, for the sake of the argument, is "spirituality" defined?

OK--I'll attempt to demonstrate that spirituality is a completely meaningless term in every sense of the word.

The most general sense of the word then. Spirituality: of the spirit. Spirit: 1) an animating or vital principle held to give life to physical organisms, 2) the immaterial intelligent or sentient part of a person. I think that covers the relevant definitions.

Originally posted by thesonofsaul
The most general sense of the word then. Spirituality: of the spirit. Spirit: 1) an animating or vital principle held to give life to physical organisms, 2) the immaterial intelligent or sentient part of a person. I think that covers the relevant definitions.

OK. I'll kick off.

1) "Spirit" is simply an outdated concept from times when people believed that some superior being had literally breathed life into them. Life begins at fertilisation and its development is programmed by DNA.

2) A person does not have an immaterial intelligent or sentient part.

Protestant theologian Paul Tillich thought that the word “spiritual” had become almost meaningless, and suggested the term “spirited” instead. I think he meant something like the elan vital.

For myself, I use the term very broadly, to designate any inclination to achieve some sort of correspondence with one’s ground of being—whether that “ground” is viewed as conscious (e.g., God, the Ein Sof, the Shiva of Kashmiri Shaivism) or not (e.g., Taoism, Zen, Advaita Vedanta). By “correspondence” I mean something more than a simple “intellectualizing about”—i.e., some conscious experience-of/communion-with. I define mysticism in the same broad way. The understanding of such an experience becomes “religion.”

Is this too broad and nebulous?

EDIT: OK, I got behind, and thesonofsaul did it much more succinctly...

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
OK. I'll kick off.

1) "Spirit" is simply an outdated concept from times when people believed that some superior being had literally breathed life into them. Life begins at fertilisation and its development is programmed by DNA.

2) A person does not have an immaterial intelligent or sentient part.

2) A person does not have an immaterial intelligent or sentient part.

But what if we talk in terms of process, rather than "parts?" For example, if we think of "consciousness" as a process happening rather than "something"?

Originally posted by vistesd
Is this too broad and nebulous?

Of course--but such a meaningless concept as spirituality could only generate broad and nebulous statements.

(Someone needs to count the straw men--sonofsaul? I think I might just have used one).

Originally posted by vistesd
But what if we talk in terms of process, rather than "parts?" For example, if we think of "consciousness" as a process happening rather than "something"?

"Consciousness" is meaningful to me. I'm conscious when I'm awake. I agree that it is a process. I don't see that consciousness implies. spirituality.

(I'm about to become unconscious...I'll carry on tomorrow).

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
OK. I'll kick off.

1) "Spirit" is simply an outdated concept from times when people believed that some superior being had literally breathed life into them. Life begins at fertilisation and its development is programmed by DNA.

2) A person does not have an immaterial intelligent or sentient part.

No argument present to undermine, I'm afraid. You are simply giving a statement. How am I supposed to avoid setting up a strawman if there is nothing for the strawman to represent?

Originally posted by thesonofsaul
No argument present to undermine, I'm afraid. You are simply giving a statement. How am I supposed to avoid setting up a strawman if there is nothing for the strawman to represent?

Did I just set up a strawman by trying to redefine "spirituality" in terms of consciousness--as an attempt at an intentional conscious correspondence with "ground of being?" Or are we still just grappling with definitions?

Bosse, if the argument is that the term "spiritual" has no meaning--except as a superstition--I am not wedded to the word; but then the argument seems to lack substance.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
Of course--but such a meaningless concept as spirituality could only generate broad and nebulous statements.

(Someone needs to count the straw men--sonofsaul? I think I might just have used one).

Close, but no cigar. You're still in the game. You just ripped on his statement--and spirituality--you did not misrepresent or pretend his argument was something else.

Originally posted by vistesd
Did I just set up a strawman by trying to redefine "spirituality" in terms of consciousness--as an attempt at an intentional conscious correspondence with "ground of being?" Or are we still just grappling with definitions?

Bosse, if the argument is that the term "spiritual" has no meaning--except as a superstition--I am not wedded to the word; but then the argument seems to lack substance.

Good question. I would think not, for you are changing a definition in order for you to create an argument in favor of the subject instead of changing an argument in order to refute it. Personally, I don't think there's much of a difference, but the definition is the definition.

In the end, however, there's not much point in arguing definition, because in the end that is just a matter of opinion. When participationg in an argument, you should always use the definitions as they are used in the argument. The only way around it is to start a new argument, or to change the subject, but that could easily be read as an attempt to escape arguments that you feel overwhelmed by.

Originally posted by thesonofsaul
Good question. I would think not, for you are changing a definition in order for you to create an argument in favor of the subject instead of changing an argument in order to refute it. Personally, I don't think there's much of a difference, but the definition is the definition.

In the end, however, there's not much point in arguing definition, b ...[text shortened]... t, but that could easily be read as an attempt to escape arguments that you feel overwhelmed by.

The definitions you offered are both naturalistic (as opposed to "supernaturalistic" ); I agree with that, because of my monistic viewpoint, even though my offering expanded it somewhat more into the "religious" (though not necessarily theistic) realm.

If the term is taken to mean something supernatural--that the idea of "spiritual" experience is one that transcends the natural order--then I'd have to go along with Bosse I think.

There is also the question of effability/ineffability. If we are talking about, as bbarr has put it, an "experience of the ineffable," then all words are at best suspect--or, as the Buddhists say, no more than fingers pointing at the moon.

What I want to ask Bosse is this:

Is your argument that any talk about a conscious experience-of/correspondence-with the (ineffable) ground of being is a meaningless notion in the modern world (regardless of what it's called)? Or is it just that any such experiences need to be "demythologized" by eliminating the meaningless and superstitious designation of "spiritual?"

BTW, I want to follow thesonofsaul in commending Bosse for taking on the brunt of this argument. If nothing else, I think it will help to to clear up my own thinking on the subject.

Here is it, past lunch time here and I am still waiting for my chance to not use a strawman in an argument. Ho-hum.

Well, to fill in the time, perhaps one of you dear lurkers can help me clarify the strawman concept for myself. It seems that at least by the wikipedia definition that the strawman can only be used to assist in negating an opponents argument, but is it also possible to use a strawman to help strengthen your own argument? For instance:

Say there is a hardcore Christian who announces to you with all the confidence in the world, "The Bible is the Word of God, therefore everything in is must be historically true." Now, let's say you are a Bible-burning Freethinker, so naturally you start bringing up all the contradictions and implausibles that are inherent in the Bible. The Christian then changes his story, only slightly but changes it nonetheless from "The Bible is the Word of God" to "The Bible is the inspired Word of God, therefore allowing contradictions and inaccuracies. Now, I would contest that this second argument is actually a strawman of the former, for if you originally said "The Bible is the inspired Word of God" it is not given than everything in it must be historically accurate. However, this is not using a strawman to negate your opponent but instead to strengthen yourself. It this a true example of a strawman, or is it something else? If not, is there another term for this erroneous tactic?

Okay, I have been told that this sort of argument is sometimes called a "dummy" argument. I will investigate this matter further and return with the truth at a later time.