Of course, but from my perspective you almost certainly do need spiritual nourishment of your own, given my broader concept of the spiritual. Purely a matter of perspective.
Which is all to say when someone like me says people can’t live without spirituality, it doesn’t necessarily imply that they feel everyone needs to believe in some kind of supernatural power.
Spirituality itself, as with anything spiritual, is a know-it-when-you-see-it kind of thing. But that’s an unsatisfying answer.
I do think ‘the opposite of empirical’ is a decent shorthand. The less a truth can be objectively defined, and the less consistent the nature of a truth is across different people, the more spiritual it is.
Enjoyment of music and wonder in the face of nature / the cosmos are two more spiritual truths I think most people know.
I would class those as psychological experiences, not spiritual ones. Just because we currently lack the tools to very precisely and objectively correlate brain activity with specific thoughts, that doesn’t mean we can never quantify that at some future date.
This feels like a “spirituality-of-the-gaps”. By this definition lightning was a purely spiritual experience until we figured out that it’s electricity. Our lack of understanding on a subject doesn’t make it magic, it’s just something we don’t understand yet, and that’s ok. The laws of physics existed long before humans existed to describe them, and they’ll continue to function long after we’re extinct.
Correlating brain activity to thoughts is not the same as being able to distill love or emotional experience down to objective understanding. The difference is spiritual experience.
Oxytocin is a part of how people experience love, but it will never be possible to objectively assess whether someone is experiencing love by measuring it or any other physical quantity.
We can measure the wavelength of light and track how it stimulates cone cells and the brain, but we will never be able to measure the spiritual experience of color.
It is science that will always be chasing the ‘gaps’ in measuring spiritual experience. No matter how closely we can measure ourselves physically, the actual spiritual experience will always transcend it.
Trying even to describe spirituality at all is difficult because it’s an inherently nebulous thing. It can only be known, never proven.
I respectfully disagree. There’s nothing inherently preventing a future technology that’s able to objectively measure personal experiences, since we don’t have any evidence to suggest that thoughts and experiences happen anywhere other than physically in the brain.
Thus-far unobserved spirits are an unnecessary addition to the neurochemical processes we know to occur in the brain and know to drive thinking. By Occam’s Razor, an evidence-based worldview must reject these unnecessary assumptions.
Also, no, science is not “filling gaps in spirituality”. The claim that there are spirits is the positive case, and bears the burden of proof.
Oh, ok. I still think we might be able to measure such things in the future, but that’s a much more defensible position. I don’t see how that pertains to spiritualism tho, maybe there’s a term that fits that better. Belief in qualia?
I personally don’t think something is spiritual just because it can’t be measured.
Of course, but from my perspective you almost certainly do need spiritual nourishment of your own, given my broader concept of the spiritual. Purely a matter of perspective.
Which is all to say when someone like me says people can’t live without spirituality, it doesn’t necessarily imply that they feel everyone needs to believe in some kind of supernatural power.
Interesting, how do you define spirituality?
Spirituality itself, as with anything spiritual, is a know-it-when-you-see-it kind of thing. But that’s an unsatisfying answer.
I do think ‘the opposite of empirical’ is a decent shorthand. The less a truth can be objectively defined, and the less consistent the nature of a truth is across different people, the more spiritual it is.
Enjoyment of music and wonder in the face of nature / the cosmos are two more spiritual truths I think most people know.
I would class those as psychological experiences, not spiritual ones. Just because we currently lack the tools to very precisely and objectively correlate brain activity with specific thoughts, that doesn’t mean we can never quantify that at some future date.
This feels like a “spirituality-of-the-gaps”. By this definition lightning was a purely spiritual experience until we figured out that it’s electricity. Our lack of understanding on a subject doesn’t make it magic, it’s just something we don’t understand yet, and that’s ok. The laws of physics existed long before humans existed to describe them, and they’ll continue to function long after we’re extinct.
Correlating brain activity to thoughts is not the same as being able to distill love or emotional experience down to objective understanding. The difference is spiritual experience.
Oxytocin is a part of how people experience love, but it will never be possible to objectively assess whether someone is experiencing love by measuring it or any other physical quantity.
We can measure the wavelength of light and track how it stimulates cone cells and the brain, but we will never be able to measure the spiritual experience of color.
It is science that will always be chasing the ‘gaps’ in measuring spiritual experience. No matter how closely we can measure ourselves physically, the actual spiritual experience will always transcend it.
Trying even to describe spirituality at all is difficult because it’s an inherently nebulous thing. It can only be known, never proven.
I respectfully disagree. There’s nothing inherently preventing a future technology that’s able to objectively measure personal experiences, since we don’t have any evidence to suggest that thoughts and experiences happen anywhere other than physically in the brain.
Thus-far unobserved spirits are an unnecessary addition to the neurochemical processes we know to occur in the brain and know to drive thinking. By Occam’s Razor, an evidence-based worldview must reject these unnecessary assumptions.
Also, no, science is not “filling gaps in spirituality”. The claim that there are spirits is the positive case, and bears the burden of proof.
You assume I mean spirits that physically exist separately from people. I do not. You have missed my point entirely.
Even the simple question of what the experience of color is like is totally beyond empiricism.
Not everything has a scientific answer, and that’s ok.
Oh, ok. I still think we might be able to measure such things in the future, but that’s a much more defensible position. I don’t see how that pertains to spiritualism tho, maybe there’s a term that fits that better. Belief in qualia?
That’s fair, I personally wouldn’t use the word spiritual for those things either, but I think it just comes down to a difference of opinion.