Originally posted by David CWell, it certainly has become lighthearted; I think we've lost our momentum in this experiment. I am going to remember argumentum ad metasmugness, though !🙂
Yeah, actually my perception of the thread was a lighthearted one. I'd think my argumentum ad metasmugness was taken with a grain of salt.
Besides, the logic there is irrefutable.
Originally posted by vistesdAs the experiment never really got going, so I still think it holds all of its original momentum. I do think it is still worth pursuing, either deliberately exercising the straw man or attempting to argue without it. Perhaps this can be done with several fallacies. We can make a series of theads about it. I'll give it some thought. If anyone else want sto start this sort of thing, feel free.
Well, it certainly has become lighthearted; I think we've lost our momentum in this experiment. I am going to remember argumentum ad metasmugness, though !🙂
Originally posted by thesonofsaulWTF? No one proposed an experiment or offered a position? That's what you're saying? That is clearly untrue. Just go back through the thread.
As the experiment never really got going, so I still think it holds all of its original momentum. I do think it is still worth pursuing, either deliberately exercising the straw man or attempting to argue without it. Perhaps this can be done with several fallacies. We can make a series of theads about it. I'll give it some thought. If anyone else want sto start this sort of thing, feel free.
3 edits
Originally posted by AThousandYoungOkay, let me see if I can pick this up where Bosse left off.
WTF? No one proposed an experiment or offered a position? That's what you're saying? That is clearly untrue. Just go back through the thread.
My offer: Anything that is ordinarily labeled “spirituality” can be explained by purely natural phenomena, including psychology; thus stripped of any supernatural content, it becomes a totally misleading term at best and should be simply dropped in favor of naturalistic descriptive terminology pertaining to such things as perception/sensation, and states/processes of consciousness, including imagination. People who claim to be “spiritual” (as opposed to “religious,” say) are really claiming to be supernaturalists, or are merely using the term "spiritual" to desribe some psychological experience. If it's the latter, let's just call it that; if it's the former, then the debate is really whether or not there are supernatural phenonmena, whatever that may mean.
EDIT: In order to claim that the shift from "spiritual" to "supernatural" represents setting up a strawman, I think one would have to offer a justification for using "spiritual" in a purely naturalistic sense, rather than some more "mundane" term.
Originally posted by vistesdWhat does 'natural' mean in this context? Is it running proxy for the term 'physical'? If consciousness is a non-physical property, does that entail that it is super-natural? That is, is naturalism committed to a particular ontology, or is it merely committed to a particular methodology (e.g., P is natural if and only if P can be a proper object of scientific study)?
Okay, let me see if I can pick this up where Bosse left off.
My offer: Anything that is ordinarily labeled “spirituality” can be explained by purely natural phenomena, including psychology; thus stripped of any supernatural content, it becomes a totally misleading term at best and should be simply dropped in favor of naturalistic descriptive terminolog ...[text shortened]... for using "spiritual" in a purely naturalistic sense, rather than some more "mundane" term.
1 edit
Originally posted by bbarrWhat does 'natural' mean in this context? Is it running proxy for the term 'physical'? If consciousness is a non-physical property, does that entail that it is super-natural?
What does 'natural' mean in this context? Is it running proxy for the term 'physical'? If consciousness is a non-physical property, does that entail that it is super-natural? That is, is naturalism committed to a particular ontology, or is it merely committed to a particular methodology (e.g., P is natural if and only if P can be a proper object of scientific study)?
No, I did not mean physicalist. (Question: are physicalist and materialist synonymous?) In Advaita Vedanta, is the Brahman “supernatural?” Is the Tao?
That is, is naturalism committed to a particular ontology, or is it merely committed to a particular methodology (e.g., P is natural if and only if P can be a proper object of scientific study)?
Frankly, I was just using the term in the sense of “within the given universe.” Seemingly, anything within the given universe would be the subject of scientific study, but also philosophy; empiricism and reason. I don’t think I am committed to a particular ontology here. The question being, then, does the term “spiritual” have any proper place anymore?
EDIT: re ontology, would not a phenomenologist approach fit the bill well enough, for example?
Originally posted by AThousandYoungAh! He didn't say that. That particular version--"so your saying..." seems to be used a lot.
This was supposed to be a strawman post, but no one called me on it. Was it not a strawman?
The trouble is ATY, we got a bit away from the original thread, with the notion of choosing an argument on spirituality--originally proposed by Bosse, to see how far we could go without comitting a strawman fallacy. I thought Bosse bowed out, so I thought I'd give it a go.