If I understand it correctly, methodological naturalism denies spirituality and is therefore an insufficient philosophy. If you don't deny spirituality you're not a naturalist (as in deny nature). Apologies, of course you don't necessarily deny spirituality as an atheist, it's sorta adolescent theism

(March 26, 2010 at 3:53 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: If I understand it correctly, methodological naturalism denies spirituality and is therefore an insufficient philosophy. If you don't deny spirituality you're not a naturalist (as in deny nature). Apologies, of course you don't necessarily deny spirituality as an atheist, it's sorta adolescent theism

methodological naturalism is a way to find answers, not a philosophy that 'denies spirituality'. Maybe you meant to say metaphysical naturalism.

"it's sorta adolescent theism" belief in spirituality doesn't necessarily relate to belief in a deity (theism). i think classifying belief in spirituality as adolescent theism is more complicated...

Both seem to apply skeptic.

(March 26, 2010 at 3:53 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: If I understand it correctly, methodological naturalism denies spirituality and is therefore an insufficient philosophy.

By what standard? It has no say in supernatural claims.

Would you use geography to solve a math problem? It's different methods to evaluate different claims.

Supernatural claims have a huge issue in distinguishing their validity. Since the claims are highly subjective, no assessment can be made in terms of their truth value.

(March 26, 2010 at 3:53 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: If you don't deny spirituality you're not a naturalist (as in deny nature).

Metaphysical naturalist. Look it up. Also spirituality as a psychological concept can be evaluated and observed within methodological naturalism. Sam Harris actually talks at length about this very thing at AAI 2007. It's on YouTube.

(March 26, 2010 at 3:53 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: Apologies, of course you don't necessarily deny spirituality as an atheist, it's sorta adolescent theism

How is that adolescent theism?

I think you're defending my POV in 1. 2. I did look it up. LOL at the observed psychological concept. 3. naive spirituality is spirituality minus theism. The most evolved spirituality is theism.

(March 26, 2010 at 5:12 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: I think you're defending my POV in 1. 2. I did look it up. LOL at the observed psychological concept. 3. naive spirituality is spirituality minus theism. The most evolved spirituality is theism.

1. You're comparing apples to oranges. I don't understand what you were trying to convey, that somehow because math doesn't have a way to decipher literary prose, then it is therefore invalid and incomplete?

2. You do know meditation does have positive psychological effects, correct? It's not because angels are talking in your ear, it's due to how your brain reacts in states of awareness, confinement and adverse conditions, that can give you happiness without the usual pleasure seeking beforehand. Watch the video I recommended you, it's pretty insightful and has nothing at all to do with metaphysical claims.

3. I wasn't asking for a regurgitation of your initial claim. I was asking you to give evidence for it.

2. Sometimes religion is entirely practical. I don't deny it. I've seen the beginning of that video before. Really can't force myself to watch any more right now... and I usually have a high tolerance for bullshit. Like I said, I don't deny the viewpoint. I also don't discount anything... that's the point here.

3. I've read books on it, but can't recall the titles right now. Any study of human spirituality details the progression from basic forms of spiritual observance such as object worship, to worship of forces in nature, personification of forces, abstraction of the personification... There's an obvious and quantifiable progression in complexity and internal consistency.

(March 26, 2010 at 6:58 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: 2. Sometimes religion is entirely practical. I don't deny it. I've seen the beginning of that video before. Really can't force myself to watch any more right now... and I usually have a high tolerance for bullshit. Like I said, I don't deny the viewpoint. I also don't discount anything... that's the point here.

The point is you don't have a stance of the practical uses for happiness attained by spiritual, but not necessarily metaphysical means?

(March 26, 2010 at 6:58 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: 3. I've read books on it, but can't recall the titles right now. Any study of human spirituality details the progression from basic forms of spiritual observance such as object worship, to worship of forces in nature, personification of forces, abstraction of the personification... There's an obvious and quantifiable progression in complexity and internal consistency.

What is your take on spiritual evolution?

(March 26, 2010 at 8:16 pm)tavarish Wrote: The point is you don't have a stance of the practical uses for happiness attained by spiritual, but not necessarily metaphysical means?

We are only considering what is spiritual alone.

(March 26, 2010 at 8:16 pm)tavarish Wrote: What is your take on spiritual evolution?

I presume you mean "Spiritual Evolution" rather than what I've outlined above, as you already know that... I think.
Skimming over the info on Wikipedia it seems a very wide net. I Accept evolution and also factor in divine intervention.

You don't need religion to believe in an afterlife. The concept of hell itself is an example of religion defending and solidifying itself in the face of other theorys, a way of terrifying people into submission. I agree with richard dawkins when he says this is child abuse. So in reality you were abused as a child and it has had a lasting affect. but don't worry you obviously use reason. do you really need religion to believe your soul lives on. if you can believe what you do without hurting others in the process, and still see reason. You're doing better than the average sheep.

Lets never forget the only reason the void between reason and faith exists is because religion had to place it there in order to survive.
To those who reason the void never existed in the first place.

can we not love the garden, believe there are fairies at the bottom of it, and still explore its wonders without denying ourselves the right to question