"Scientists have identified areas of the brain that, when damaged, lead to greater spirituality. The findings hint at the roots of spiritual and religious attitudes, the researchers say."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/livescience/2010...inthebrain

I liked the bit about the link to self-transcendance as discussed here this week

I think the study is bullshit. Drop some cid and stimulate the frontal temporal lobe, and you will have yourself a good ole come to Jesus time. Spirituality is caused by over stimulation of the brain, not damage.

(February 14, 2010 at 9:00 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: "Scientists have identified areas of the brain that, when damaged, lead to greater spirituality. The findings hint at the roots of spiritual and religious attitudes, the researchers say."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/livescience/2010...inthebrain

I liked the bit about the link to self-transcendance as discussed here this week

Interesting article! I liked it the first time I read it in this thread:

http://atheistforums.org/thread-2986.html

Rhizo

Spirituality is related to brain damage... yep, makes sense.

(February 15, 2010 at 11:34 am)theVOID Wrote: Spirituality is related to brain damage... yep, makes sense.

Too easy. Spiritual feelings (without any supernatural conclusion necessarily involved) can be achieved in normal brains. See for instance here. Also an undamaged brain generates the illusion of free agency which is suggesting dualism to us. Should we therefore conclude that the part responsible for it is a malfunctioning freak of nature?

Naturalistic spirituality is a complete fucking oxymoron. What is the point in using a word so entwined and tainted by religious/supernatural thinking? It to me seems like a bullshit attempt at common ground with those who believe in the supernatural, all you achieve by using it is a false sense of being on the same page when in reality the two are entirely different positions, one is referring to the thoughts and emotions of a person as if they are related to something supernatural and the other as the illusory abstracts that arise from the physical brain, but they are both using the same word. Naturalists should ditch the word spiritual/spirit/spirituality altogether, for the sake of coherency if nothing else, it's practically useless in it's current ambiguity and you achieve absolutely no clarity by whoring it out to both sides of the mind/brain debate.

(February 15, 2010 at 1:11 pm)theVOID Wrote: Naturalistic spirituality is a complete fucking oxymoron.

You sometimes amaze me in your brainless answers, Void. Are all things new that you encounter in the complete fucking range? I wonder how a naturalist such as yourself (according to your religious views) can be so unfamiliar with the points taken by naturalism.

theVOID Wrote:What is the point in using a word so entwined and tainted by religious/supernatural thinking?

Listen up. Naturalism.org is a really 100% science-friendly organisation supported by several biggies of the 100% materialistic kind such as Dan Dennett, Susan Blackmore, Owen Flanagan, Joshua Greene and
Ursula Goodenough. Not that you should go by their authority but it certainly says something that one of the four horsemen is willing to attach his name to the organization. I mean, these are people that take the implications of science not lightly. They deny free agency, accept determinism, are fervent monists. And yes, I do understand that the fact that they support naturalism.org does not necessarily mean that they personally support all portrayed views on naturalism.org.

The point of talking about naturalistic spirituality is twofold:

1) It is a reclaim of the word spirituality that since long has been hijacked by supernatural nutjobs and their parrots. Why should we allow the proponents of the supernatural to hijack a term that refers to the essence of nature when naturalism of all worldviews is outperforms all supernaturalism in showing the monistic essence of nature?

2) Spirituality as in reverence for nature, a feeling of unity with nature, being a part of nature is a starting point for comtemplation on the essence of nature and the profound implications of scientific knowledge.

Have you ever been to a funeral of someone you loved? Ever felt awe at hearing scientific news? Ever recognized yourself in your kid? Have you marvelled at the knowledge that the stuff you're made of must have been created in exploding supernovas? Have you ever felt the deep satisfaction of experiencing a well formulated bunch of formulas that so well condensed the phenoma of nature? Well, I have. These are real feelings and instead of labeling them as weaknesses they should be a stronghold for understanding our place in the vastness of nature. We as naturalists can acknowledge that these feelings are generated by nature itself. Not by gods and their many coloured shadows.

theVOID Wrote:It to me seems like a bullshit attempt at common ground with those who believe in the supernatural,...

I'm pretty sure it's not. If you are against bullshit attempts for common ground you should fulminate against Stephen Gould's NOMA proposition. I've fulminated against NOMA. Also to me personally atheism is in essence only a rejection of stances and is empty as such. Like creationism is nothing more than a rejection of evolution. Naturalism is a way to position man with all his traits and quirks amidst nature based on the best possible knowledge available, scientific knowledge. And yes you need some more guts for that than the nay sayer. Are you up to it?

theVOID Wrote:... all you achieve by using it is a false sense of being on the same page when in reality the two are entirely different positions, one is referring to the thoughts and emotions of a person as if they are related to something supernatural and the other as the illusory abstracts that arise from the physical brain, but they are both using the same word.

If we both know that naturalism is definitely not a claim of the supernatural than what is your point? Naturalists decide on its meaning not theists.

theVOID Wrote:Naturalists should ditch the word spiritual/spirit/spirituality altogether, for the sake of coherency if nothing else, it's practically useless in it's current ambiguity and you achieve absolutely no clarity by whoring it out to both sides of the mind/brain debate.

Naturalists should cleanse the word spirituality from supernatural monopoly instead of shrug and turn their back on human emotion and they should be firm in naming the human emotions involved in celebrating the overwhelming implications of the single substance that nature is. A nature without gods, spirits and other supernatural junk ultimately to me is more satisfying than one with that stuff.

I sincerely hope you will be able to distance yourself from emotional venting. I'll respond to any argumentative point you may raise.

I'm with Void on this one, we shouldn't use the word spirituality like you propose PR. If I dropped a steak in dog shit, sure I could wash it off and there is a chance I could get it perfectly clean, but anyone who knew that the steak was dropped into a turd would avoid it for good reason. It is much easier to just avoid the steak altogether and make a new one.

Rhizo

When you drop a steak in dog shit, you dropped a steak in dog shit. When you're afraid to reclaim, you're bending over for the dog.

So what's your new one? Never heard you before about it.

---

Watson do you realize you gave a kudo for a full materialistic account of reality? Deny your god and I might even belief your intentions.

PR,

There is an experience you are trying to describe and while you think spirituality is a perfectly good word that we should use to describe it, I would say that a new one should be made because of the connotations that are fused to the word spirituality. I have a hard time removing dualistic connotations from spirituality, how would you propose we reclaim it?

Rhizo