religion vs spirituality

[zoltani]

I'm immune to both.  I loathe rituals, don't believe in the supernatural and have no idea what spirituality even means.

How can you possibly not believe in the supernatural? Do you breathe? Do you control your breath, your heartbeat? Who does?

Did you grow yourself in your mother's womb?

The universe itself is supernatural, are you saying you do not believe in the universe? Therefore you do not believe in existence? We are the universe, there is no separation.

No. By definition, nature is natural. Supernatural means to exist outside of natural physical laws. Unless you are using 'supernatural' metaphorically?

I too had the feeling that perhaps zoltani doesn't understand the definition of “supernatural”. Or perhaps he / she is very very religious, and cannot imagine a person who simply does not believe in anything supernatural.

No, I just have experienced the supernatural in ways you may have not. My experience with the supernatural was a spiritual experience. My experience showed my that there is no difference between you, me, nature, earth, the universe. Time is more of a plane rather than a point, we were never born nor will ever die, we exist all the time, we are gods. We are literally made of the universe. My experience could not be explained with science or in "natural" terms, it broke all the rules. Our brains are so limited and what we see is not all that exists. Have you ever experienced ego dissolution or ego death?

“Jesus Christ knew he was God. So wake up and find out eventually who you really are. In our culture, of course, they’ll say you’re crazy and you’re blasphemous, and they’ll either put you in jail or in a nut house (which is pretty much the same thing). However if you wake up in India and tell your friends and relations, ‘My goodness, I’ve just discovered that I’m God,’ they’ll laugh and say, ‘Oh, congratulations, at last you found out.”
― Alan W. Watts, The Essential Alan Watts

[wenchsenior]

I'm immune to both.  I loathe rituals, don't believe in the supernatural and have no idea what spirituality even means.

How can you possibly not believe in the supernatural? Do you breathe? Do you control your breath, your heartbeat? Who does?

Did you grow yourself in your mother's womb?

The universe itself is supernatural, are you saying you do not believe in the universe? Therefore you do not believe in existence? We are the universe, there is no separation.

No. By definition, nature is natural. Supernatural means to exist outside of natural physical laws. Unless you are using 'supernatural' metaphorically?

I too had the feeling that perhaps zoltani doesn't understand the definition of “supernatural”. Or perhaps he / she is very very religious, and cannot imagine a person who simply does not believe in anything supernatural.

No, I just have experienced the supernatural in ways you may have not. My experience with the supernatural was a spiritual experience. My experience showed my that there is no difference between you, me, nature, earth, the universe. Time is more of a plane rather than a point, we were never born nor will ever die, we exist all the time, we are gods. We are literally made of the universe. My experience could not be explained with science or in "natural" terms, it broke all the rules. Our brains are so limited and what we see is not all that exists. Have you ever experienced ego dissolution or ego death?

“Jesus Christ knew he was God. So wake up and find out eventually who you really are. In our culture, of course, they’ll say you’re crazy and you’re blasphemous, and they’ll either put you in jail or in a nut house (which is pretty much the same thing). However if you wake up in India and tell your friends and relations, ‘My goodness, I’ve just discovered that I’m God,’ they’ll laugh and say, ‘Oh, congratulations, at last you found out.”
― Alan W. Watts, The Essential Alan Watts

Well, you are certainly having unique experience in terms of your understanding of word definitions.

[zoltani]

Well, you are certainly having unique experience in terms of your understanding of word definitions.

And you sure are limiting your reality and experience by adhering to definitions according to language which cannot be trusted.

To quote more Watts:
“We seldom realize, for example that our most private thoughts and emotions are not actually our own. For we think in terms of languages and images which we did not invent, but which were given to us by our society.”

"It is hard indeed to notice anything for which the languages available to us have no description."

[wenchsenior]

Well, you are certainly having unique experience in terms of your understanding of word definitions.

And you sure are limiting your reality and experience by adhering to definitions according to language which cannot be trusted.

To quote more Watts:
“We seldom realize, for example that our most private thoughts and emotions are not actually our own. For we think in terms of languages and images which we did not invent, but which were given to us by our society.”

"It is hard indeed to notice anything for which the languages available to us have no description."

Oh, I've had the experience you are discussing several times. It's not uncommon. I agree that it's AMAZING, better than any drug, and can be transformative in one's life, no argument about that! Lots of terms thrown around to describe it (peak experience, experience of the numinous, religious, transcendental, self-actualization, etc.). It's just that what you referred to in your original post are natural phenomena, which are explainable by science and our understanding of natural laws. That's not supernatural, by definition. Words do having meanings, and those aren't supernatural experiences. Your second post is about an experience YOU had (and many other people have had, including me). You ascribe those feelings to something that operates outside nature, and perhaps that's what causes them. And if they are supernatural, then they likely couldn't be repeated or disproved so science could not address them.  But that doesn't prove that they are supernatural, only that they FEEL that way to you.

To me (an atheist), such experiences ALSO feel awe-inspiring, mysterious, elevating, like I'm being absorbed into an infinite universe/god/one, transcendental, in other words, 'supernatural. But I would never assume that feeling is a product of the supernatural unless there were no other explanation (e.g., likely a product of measurable brain activity and biochemicals (e.g., dopamine and endorphins) reacting to particular stimuli under particular conditions).

I agree with you that these experiences are fantastic. I actually haven't had one in a while and I miss that. Scientifically speaking, this is likely because 1) I haven't been meditating, 2) I'm not as fit as I was when I was younger and don't regularly get myself in an endorphin producing state, 3) I live in an area where it is difficult to get exposure to diverse natural beauty on a frequent basis, 4) I have a physiological disorder that has for the past few years interfered with dopamine uptake to my brain (though the upside is it makes me an awesome investor!).

Sure, it's POSSIBLE that supernatural phenomena exist and account for this type of phenomenon. Occam's razor indicates most likely it is not. We should keep chasing the experience, for sure, regardless of it's origin (though perhaps not if our feeling of transcendental unity with a higher power leads us to suicide bombing and such).

[zoltani]

Science has yet to explain consciousness or ego. Since the supernatural is defined as some force or event that is beyond scientific explanation or the understanding of the laws of nature then wouldn't consciousness, by definition, be supernatural?

Science is the new religion, and IMO its evangelicals are just as bad as the classical religions. I am, by training, a scientist, but I try not to let that get in the way of understanding, if that makes sense.

[FINate]

Religion is usually shorthand for "organized religion," so in that meaning yes, there's a big difference between spirituality and organized religion. But what is religion in the broadest sense then? I'll quote Timothy Keller because explains it better than I can:

Let’s begin by asking what religion is. Some say it is a form of belief in God. But that would not fit Zen Buddhism, which does not really believe in God at all. Some say it is belief in the supernatural. But that does not fit Hinduism, which does not believe in a supernatural realm beyond the material world, but only a spiritual reality within the empirical. What is religion then? It is a set of beliefs that explain what life is all about, who we are, and the most important things that human beings should spend their time doing.

So in the broadest sense I don't see a difference between the two.

[Curbside Prophet]

I'll add to my previous comments that I think a cult is simply religion that hasn't gained widespread acceptance.  All religions start off as a cult, at some inflection point they gain acceptance and are transformed into a religion.

[mrpercentage]

Im just copying and pasting this from another corner of the internet because I have a strong sense that this will degrade into "prove it to me" despite the thread being about what YOU think:

Thus, according to Hume, we waver back and forth between skepticism and natural beliefs. When we realize how philosophically unjustified natural beliefs are, we are led down the path of skepticism. The doorbell then rings, and we're snapped out of our philosophical speculations and back to our normal routines and natural beliefs.
            A third attack on radical skepticism is that the skeptic's position is logically self-refuting. The skeptic's main point is this:
 
We cannot know any belief with certainty.
 
Let's call this "the skeptic's thesis." However, if I put forward the skeptic's thesis, then I am implying that I know it with certainty. It is like saying this:
 
We know with certainty that we cannot know any belief with certainty.

[wenchsenior]

Science has yet to explain consciousness or ego. Since the supernatural is defined as some force or event that is beyond scientific explanation or the understanding of the laws of nature then wouldn't consciousness, by definition, be supernatural?

Science is the new religion, and IMO its evangelicals are just as bad as the classical religions. I am, by training, a scientist, but I try not to let that get in the way of understanding, if that makes sense.

Ok, perhaps we are just debating semantics, then. You are positing the supernatural to be similar the 'God of the gaps': i.e., whatever we don't know/can't [yet or perhaps ever] measure or explain is ' supernatural, ' which I guess is a workable definition and maybe ego is a good example of it (I don't know the neuro-biology field).

Science has now explained many things historically regarded as supernatural, and it has also opened up new areas of inquiry that could hypothetically be called 'supernatural'. I expect that will continue to perpetuity. Some people posit a deity, higher consciousness, etc, as explaining the stuff in that Gap. Mysteries are fun; humans enjoy contemplating abstract, unknowable, or immeasurable concepts and their effect on ourselves and human society.

I'm a scientist by training as well, I live with a scientist, and I work with scientists every day. Your statement that 'science is the new religion' is pithy, fashionable, and silly. That's like comparing chalk to cheese. There are individual advocates for each that are personally obnoxious, of course, but scientists and their claims are subject to testing, evidence, and disproof. Religious proponents and their claims are not.

As you know given your training (non-scientists frustratingly often don't), the scientific method works by DISPROVING things that are testable, but it does not and cannot claim to PROVE any absolute definitive truth. This is not a bug, it's a feature. Speaking colloquially, scientists will say, "We know such and such... [to be true]" when they are referring to the provisional, 'workable' truth of the objective physical universe that we inhabit, but more typically they hedge their language to "current evidence supports so and so at such and such a level of statistical probability" based on hypotheses that are proposed, repeatedly tested for weakness, strongly supported by evidence, etc. This is why many of them aren't good at communicating with the general public.

Despite its lurching messiness, the scientific method is still the most useful and efficient way that humans, with our limited senses and brains, have found to obtain objective information and continuously expand our knowledge of the physical universe. As with all human endeavors, the field includes egocentric individuals who act like they are the guardians of 'absolute truth about everything.' However, the scientific discipline itself discourages this because a crucial element of the process is the constant attempt to tear down beautiful ideas with hard data. Science cannot, however, investigate in all realms of inquiry or thought. No decently educated, ethical scientist would ever claim it can.

Scientists can correctly state that the existence of god is not now, and possibly not ever, disprovable by science, and so that question is not currently within its purview (though it won't stop many of them from trying to devise tests for god).

Scientists can anticipate eventually being able to address at least some phenomena that currently might be called 'supernatural'. Systems of measurement, tests of disprove etc. might be devised tomorrow, at which point: POOF!, something that was supernatural 5 minutes ago will tomorrow suddenly fall into the realm of 'natural' and explainable.

Scientists can correctly state that objective evidence supports natural explanations for many of the things that believers might reflexively consider 'supernatural' or evidence of god.

In regard to any particular question that science can tackle, scientists must ALWAYS assume the possibility that further evidence or better tests will eventually overturn their current provisional truth (assuming the investigation is far enough along to even posit one). This is the foundation of the scientific discipline and it is the crucial distinction from 'religious seeking'

Seeking for, and evangelizing about, religious 'truth' is a completely different endeavor. Claims to absolute truths about supernatural things (and totally ridiculous claims about natural phenomena as well) are regularly made by religious dogma, institutions, and believers. These claims are not subject to disproof or objective evidence (see Sagan's invisible dragon analogy). They are subject to faith, subjective feelings and experience, and arguments from authority. 

Chalk to cheese.

[mrpercentage]

What I think my friend is trying to say is that eugenics is sciences baby with a whole host of other undesirables and is therefore not pure or without sin. It is also absolutely right and unrefutable and undeniably absolute until a new model points out that the other was wrong the whole time.

The irony is that science has no place in discussing things that can not be measured or proven.

I love science but many often misuse it to bludgeon the uniformed believer. Me well, I have read Sagan, Dawkins, Hitchins, Russel, Hume, and blessed Neitzche. I used to drive people nuts with a picture of him on my desk (it was that magnificent mustache of his).

Without fail if you post anything spiritual or religious a science major or science channel jeopardy champion will rise to show their magnificent intellect. The mad scientist always wants to rule the world from Gargamelle, Alex Luther, Mr Glass, all the way to Pinky and the Brain.

😏

[RetiredAt63]

The mad scientist always wants to rule the world from Gargamelle, Alex Luther, Mr Glass, all the way to Pinky and the Brain.

😏

That is why they are "mad scientists".  Most scientists fully understand that our understanding is incomplete, will always be incomplete, and is subject to change with new evidence.  That is not a mindset that produces absolute dictators.

Also, the intersection of science and policy sometimes produces strange offspring - that is where eugenics and Social Darwinism came from.  As a population biologist I understand that our species genome is being affected by modern medicine.  As a person living in the 21st century I am glad, because people who would otherwise have died are living good lives (not to mention I appreciate having all my teeth).  If we ended up living in the zombie apocalypse equivalent things would change.  Look at the diabetic in Lucifer's Hammer, he stored the books that would show how a less technical society could make insulin.  He knew his supply would only last so long, and then he was making more or was dead .

Sorry, definitely that got OT.

[GuitarStv]

Science has yet to explain consciousness or ego. Since the supernatural is defined as some force or event that is beyond scientific explanation or the understanding of the laws of nature then wouldn't consciousness, by definition, be supernatural?

There has been a lot of research into consciousness in the last few years, including reasoning for the existence of consciousness, evolutionary benefits of having consciousness, brain scans demonstrating when the consciousness is in control of decision making, etc.  What explanation exactly are you looking for?

[Ottawa]

Science has yet to explain consciousness or ego. Since the supernatural is defined as some force or event that is beyond scientific explanation or the understanding of the laws of nature then wouldn't consciousness, by definition, be supernatural?

There has been a lot of research into consciousness in the last few years, including reasoning for the existence of consciousness, evolutionary benefits of having consciousness, brain scans demonstrating when the consciousness is in control of decision making, etc.  What explanation exactly are you looking for?

I don't think invocation of terms like supernatural are a good catch-all for things we don't understand.  What GuitarStv is saying specifically is that we do understand quite a bit more about things that not so long ago we didn't.  If you follow the projection of a curve like that we can see that our knowledge gain will erode and replace the irrational explanations that exist for so many things.  Humans by definition are not rational beings, we all have our blind spots - created by such things as personal interest, emotions, cognitive biases, prejudice, subjectivity etc....  So even when a body of scientific knowledge grows to replace the supernatural explanations, some people reject the science in favour of the irrational.  That is who we are.  That is why topics like this one create such strongly polarizing views. Rational vs Irrational is a pretty hard hill mountain to climb from opposite sides...

[scrubbyfish]

So even when a body of scientific knowledge grows to replace the supernatural explanations, some people reject the science in favour of the irrational.

I see this differently.

For me, wenchsenior's presentation a few posts back covered much of the issue well.

What I see, including quite frequently on the forums, is that some people will present science's current/latest understanding/provisional concept, but rather than state "current understanding", "idea to date", etc, it will speak to it as though it is "fact". In my mind, fact would be something true, not provisional, chock full of caveats, etc.

If wenchsenior's presentation accurately reflects the definition of science, it explains a lot. That is, if the phrase scientific fact refers only to the relatively narrow range of things proven, it seems to me the phrase is applied too broadly in media and conversation, which is what puts many people off. That is, they are not put off of fact, they are put off by presentations that take a fact and then build a big story around it, with an expectation that everyone fall in line with the story.

But if the word science refers to a much wider realm of guesses, hypotheses, provisional statements, etc, it leaves a lot of room for the word to applied. But many people (and I think fairly so) do not confuse those with fact. When a person leans on a provisional understanding in a firm stance which forgets the limitations and caveats, and is evangelizing, and is insisting that others also see it as firm vs provisional, etc, the presentation sounds remarkably religious.

That is, some people leaning on science sound very unscientific (are completely forgetting that the understanding is limited and provisional), and some deeply religious and/or spiritual people fully respect fact—they just don't take on provisional/current/temporary understanding as though it is fact. Which seems far less religious to me than people doing so!

So, often the disagreement in not "rejection of science in favour of the irrational," it's a debate of what is and is not fact, what is a provisional concept, the vast area that remains unknown. Some are taking the extremely limited facts determined by testing and stretching those to cover far more than the testing did, and to folks like me this stretchiness and any stance associated with it seems religious—and others are responding to this in their recognition of and comfort with what is still unknown.

That's really the debate I often see.

[GuitarStv]

It's very difficult to prove something conclusively in the realm of science to the point that it becomes fact.  Almost any time I've heard the term 'scientific fact' it has been used by someone without much understanding of science.  Science is a collection of the best guesses we currently have supported by observation and reasoning.  If someone comes up with a theory that is better supported, science changes to accept it.

The reliance on change in thought and evidence/reason is what differentiates science entirely from religion.

[scrubbyfish]

It's very difficult to prove something conclusively in the realm of science to the point that it becomes fact.  [...]  Science is a collection of the best guesses we currently have supported by observation and reasoning.

Yes. (Well said.)

And to my mind, it's totally okay and doable for people to acknowledge those best guesses (as best guesses) while also honouring the rest of their understanding—their best guesses in additional areas currently supported by their observation and reasoning—via any practice that doesn't harm another. Many people easily do both. I think there is a frequent idea in our culture that a person is scientific or religious. I rarely see that dichotomy.

The reliance on change in thought and evidence/reason is what differentiates science entirely from religion.

This is interesting... This would make some groups identified as religious not religions. e.g., The group I hang with tends to land at the "spiritual but not religious" point on the spectrum, and is constantly evolving. It has evolved so much even in the last 20 years that some other religious people say it's not religious at all (whereas for me, it's still "too religious" and I consciously ignore and opt out of some aspects).

[arebelspy]

I'm with Spinoza

Hell yeah! 

I'm the only Spinozist I've ever met, but (AFAIK, and understand) I agree 100% with him.

[arebelspy]

Also, I have not seen a single post in this thread I have disagreed with.

Some tautological, some obvious, some trite, some obfuscated, some brilliant.  But all true.

;)

[Helvegen]

I'm philosophically/spiritually Hindu, if I had to be labelled - advaita vedanta.

I read this book and it pulled together all I scatterbrained thought about the nature of our existence into something coherent. It was honestly a relief to read.