A naturalistic spirituality?
- Thread starter DT Strain
- Start date
BrotherMichaelSky
Well-Known Member
Hello everyone
Having been a member of this board for a few years now, I think Spiritual Naturalism is something we could discuss here, and also news in which some of the members here may be interested. Apologies to those who aren't...
The Spiritual Naturalist Society is a new non-profit organization and community that has launched just this week. It's mission is to help naturalists live better lives by spreading awareness of spiritual wisdom and practices that are consistent with a modern naturalist (non-supernatural) worldview. Our articles and member materials are informed by a number of writers, professors, and others from a wide range of traditions, including Buddhism, Humanism, Paganism, Christian Naturalism, Stoicism, and more.
If you're interested in learning more, please visit:
www.SpiritualNaturalistSociety.org
If you'd like to subscribe to our articles:
FeedBurner Email Subscription
And if you'd like to learn about Membership in the Society:
Join | The Spiritual Naturalist Society
What are your thoughts on a purely naturalistic spiritual practice?
Whew, I read that whole blithering mess on your thread so I didn't repeat a question... sheesh, already.....
The question I have is this: Where does the observation stop in your practice?
A naturalist view, IMO, must come from an example in the natural world, am I correct?
Where does that observation stop, is my question.
As was pointed out earlier, Quantum Physics must enter the equation eventually if one is adopting a view of the natural world.
Quantum Physics says that Consciousness is the ground of being, from which the physical is manifest.
So isn't the approach kind of bass ackwards in it's claims? To pick and choose what to deny in a belief structure based on observation? Kind of invalidates it doesn't it, revealing critical errors in formation when you start excluding phenomena from observation.
Your disavowel of human experience sort of starts things off with blinders, IMO. Your understanding of such experience plays no part in acknowledging it, but to cordon experience off reveals intent to limit understanding. ok for some I guess.
radarmark
Quaker-in-the-Making
Probably never. Why? Observation (I may well be wrong here) is the experience. And the osbervation (per Quantum) wraps around and co-creates the universe. Like Wheeler's famous eye looking back in time.
BrotherMichaelSky
Well-Known Member
I was looking for the reasoning behind the limits - what makes a naturalist?
I was curious.
Last edited:
Very interesting. The right path and universal consciousness. That is simular to what I have been talking about.
There is a left hand path and a right hand path. Say there is a forest. The right hand and left hand paths go around the forest in a circular pattern. Then there is the center path right through the middle of the Forrest. You wind up at the same destination but the center path is quicker. When taking all paths you have to take them with the mind that is love. All good things come from love...compassion, kindness, forgiveness, understanding ect.. When you approach a path without the mind that is love you become lost. You veer off the paths.
radarmark
Quaker-in-the-Making
No even close. Sorry... that may be your interpretation. Rest assured it is not that of most Quantum Physicists. Most believe in the multi-verse theory, which really denies consciousness.
No, his approach to human experience is just not as broad as yours. He believes (I think, correct me if I am wrong, DTS) that experience is the "actuality" that which is real, an eminent.
I believe that the "big bang" was the big fall. That elements split but that each element has a counter element, when united becomes an immortal element. Creation was a beautiful thing, a dance of lights and formations and a merging of those lights to create the original whole universe. Every element was perfectly matched like I described how the male and female were in the beginning. What aspect of multi-verse theory are you talking about that denies consciousness? Everything is an extension of consciousness that feeds intelligent life. Even the elements themselves are consciousness that extends from consciousness.
I also believe that each element is connected to its counter at the sub atomic level
There is a place in subatomic particles that is the place of oneness. Its unbreakable and unchangeable. In that oneness is the codes for the union of elemental particles.
DT Strain
Spiritual Naturalist
Hi Donnann,
You seem to have quite a lot of specific beliefs about a lot of things and much of your wording sounds confusing to me. Many of the claims you are making are simply not something I have any information on. Others, such as quantum physics, are things I'm conceptually educated on, but your descriptions of it don't sound familiar to me at all. In any case, best wishes!
You seem to have quite a lot of specific beliefs about a lot of things and much of your wording sounds confusing to me. Many of the claims you are making are simply not something I have any information on. Others, such as quantum physics, are things I'm conceptually educated on, but your descriptions of it don't sound familiar to me at all. In any case, best wishes!
DT Strain
Spiritual Naturalist
Radarmark,
I'm not sure I would say that experience is the "actuality". It appears that there is an objective reality which forms our environment, and our physical senses can imperfectly collect basic data about that environment, which goes into forming an imperfect mental model of the environment, on which we make our plans and act. But that incoming data can be misconstrued. It is also often less complete than we imagine, with our imaginations filling in the gaps without our realizing it. And, thirdly, that raw data is interpreted by our minds using our experiences, biases, and so on. So, there are many steps along the way, which introduce opportunities for our mental model of reality to be inconsistent with the actual external and objective reality in which we exist.
This is why a humble approach to knowledge and claims seems best; with a minimum of assumption necessary to proceed. Along the way, we take precautions to help verify, duplicate, and get cross-confirmation of collected data. These methods (i.e., the scientific method) greatly reduce the common errors, but even then all conclusions are provisional because there can always be unknown mistakes in understanding. Yet, we push on, keep learning, experiencing, measuring, confirming, and corroborating - with an open mind but without filling in gaps without reliable confirmation.
More importantly, our spiritual practice does not put itself in the role of spirituality being a 'source of knowledge'. We leave that to the people who do the hard work of gathering knowledge through measurement and observation. Our spirituality is about learning helpful perspectives on that knowledge and integrating the truths of reality as far as we know it, into our Way of being. We do this through practices and ritual designed to deeply instill wisdom and cultivate a character more consistent with Nature (the universe, including our own nature as moral-rational beings). And, in so doing, make a more content, happier, and flourishing life possible, regardless of external circumstances.
I'm not sure I would say that experience is the "actuality". It appears that there is an objective reality which forms our environment, and our physical senses can imperfectly collect basic data about that environment, which goes into forming an imperfect mental model of the environment, on which we make our plans and act. But that incoming data can be misconstrued. It is also often less complete than we imagine, with our imaginations filling in the gaps without our realizing it. And, thirdly, that raw data is interpreted by our minds using our experiences, biases, and so on. So, there are many steps along the way, which introduce opportunities for our mental model of reality to be inconsistent with the actual external and objective reality in which we exist.
This is why a humble approach to knowledge and claims seems best; with a minimum of assumption necessary to proceed. Along the way, we take precautions to help verify, duplicate, and get cross-confirmation of collected data. These methods (i.e., the scientific method) greatly reduce the common errors, but even then all conclusions are provisional because there can always be unknown mistakes in understanding. Yet, we push on, keep learning, experiencing, measuring, confirming, and corroborating - with an open mind but without filling in gaps without reliable confirmation.
More importantly, our spiritual practice does not put itself in the role of spirituality being a 'source of knowledge'. We leave that to the people who do the hard work of gathering knowledge through measurement and observation. Our spirituality is about learning helpful perspectives on that knowledge and integrating the truths of reality as far as we know it, into our Way of being. We do this through practices and ritual designed to deeply instill wisdom and cultivate a character more consistent with Nature (the universe, including our own nature as moral-rational beings). And, in so doing, make a more content, happier, and flourishing life possible, regardless of external circumstances.
The place I am talking about the oneness cannot be seen by current technology. I am sure they can develop that technology but that would involve crystals.However they can find those answers by merging opposites. There is a negative and a positive atom. All of the negative and positive would be an exact mirror image of each other even mathematically. They would unite those atoms and that would produce an immortal element. Does this make sense to you?Hi Donnann,
You seem to have quite a lot of specific beliefs about a lot of things and much of your wording sounds confusing to me. Many of the claims you are making are simply not something I have any information on. Others, such as quantum physics, are things I'm conceptually educated on, but your descriptions of it don't sound familiar to me at all. In any case, best wishes!
A Cup Of Tea
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 3,313
- Reaction score
- 579
- Points
- 108
Now now, donnann, don't forget to keep to the topic. Have you ever heard of 'Kill your darlings' in writing essays for example? I mean having something that is very important for you that you want to discuss, but since it is not directly relevant to what is being discussed it should be it shouldn't be mentioned.
I think you're leaving your darling all over the board, lets give them threads of their own where they can be discussed thoroughly without distractions!
I think you're leaving your darling all over the board, lets give them threads of their own where they can be discussed thoroughly without distractions!
radarmark
Quaker-in-the-Making
Fine, but obviously I do not agree. The existence of an “objective reality” (something that acts on us but upon which we do not) seems to me merely an assumption. Yes, there is some thing “out there” but I do not believe it to be some eternal puzzle that can be solved via logic or rationality. Just a matter of focus. Mine is on what we know (what we can experience).
Yes, but the only “reliable confirmation” is something we experience, be it sense experience, a shared inter-subjective objective experience, or whatever. I do not put as much faith in the modernist model or scientific materialist monist position as you. That’s all. I think the universe is much more complex than either modernism or materialism admits. Just trying to get equal footing for Heraclitus as Anaximander, for Whitehead as Einstein.
Here we do differ. We measure and observe in spiritual practice. I prepare for the experiment by focusing on the beyond or clearing my intellectual mind. I observe what I experience and, by listening, to what others experience. I measure by seeing how well the experience fits in with a coherent and consistent view of reality. Unlike Descartes (and more like Leibnitz) I do not in my mind and heart separate between physical and mental. Unlike Kant (and more like Hume) I do not force a model (regardless of how authoritative or rational or empirical) upon reality.
DT Strain
Spiritual Naturalist
I'm sorry, but it makes no sense to me whatsoever. I don't know what you mean by "place of oneness" or how you can know of such a place, or how you know that technology can see it, or how you know it would involve crystals or why, or what you mean by 'merging opposites', or why uniting opposite atoms (matter and antimatter???) would produce an "immortal element" or what "immortal element" means, or why any of that is important or relevant to spirituality or anything else. I am perhaps better educated in science than most non-scientists, but - though it seems quite imaginative - none of this sounds vaguely familiar to anything I know of reality. Perhaps part of this is language barrier, but I really cannot even begin to conceive of what you are talking about. And please don't take this to be an invitation or request to have you explain these questions, because I think doing so would severely take us off the topic of this thread. Thanks though, and sorry
DT Strain
Spiritual Naturalist
Radarmark,
Yes, I'm sure we differ on many things. That's ok friend!
I would like to clarify that, although I suspect an objective reality that acts on us, I would not say we do not act on it. We act on it all the time, just as I am acting on it by posting this message. In fact, we are inherently intertwined as a part of it. We are, the universe perceiving itself.
Also, I would clarify that I fully acknowledge that an external objective reality which is the subject being reported by our physical senses is an assumption on my part - the root assumption on which we all act. But I don't see how any other assumption is possible that still allows us to function. By typing your message to me, each keystroke was an assumption that when you hit the button, a letter would appear on the screen, that I would see these letters and take your message from them, and that they would be considered by my mind, which is a different part of reality than your mind - or else, there would be no need to send the communication. When you eat your next meal or avoid stepping into traffic, you are assuming this is necessary to keep you alive.
But, upon that root assumption, we can make the remainder of deductions and inductions which are all internally consistent and seem to square with our experiences. All along knowing, that I could be a brain in a jar, and yet I have yet to starve or be hit by a bus.
Thirdly, I would make clear that, while it seems observation (I feel pain as a step, I *look* to see what I've stepped on) is the best way I know of to assess reality (and that's all science is - just a formalized version of the same process) - it is by no means something I believe can tell us everything about reality. It is inherently limited and imperfect. But this acknowledgement doesn't tell me that other proposed methods of gathering facts work any better, or even at all. For this, I would need experiences which have shown that to me - of which I have none.
Undoubtedly, we all have different experiences, which leads to our different understandings of our situation - and, again, that's ok
Best wishes!
-Daniel
Yes, I'm sure we differ on many things. That's ok friend!
I would like to clarify that, although I suspect an objective reality that acts on us, I would not say we do not act on it. We act on it all the time, just as I am acting on it by posting this message. In fact, we are inherently intertwined as a part of it. We are, the universe perceiving itself.
Also, I would clarify that I fully acknowledge that an external objective reality which is the subject being reported by our physical senses is an assumption on my part - the root assumption on which we all act. But I don't see how any other assumption is possible that still allows us to function. By typing your message to me, each keystroke was an assumption that when you hit the button, a letter would appear on the screen, that I would see these letters and take your message from them, and that they would be considered by my mind, which is a different part of reality than your mind - or else, there would be no need to send the communication. When you eat your next meal or avoid stepping into traffic, you are assuming this is necessary to keep you alive.
But, upon that root assumption, we can make the remainder of deductions and inductions which are all internally consistent and seem to square with our experiences. All along knowing, that I could be a brain in a jar, and yet I have yet to starve or be hit by a bus.
Thirdly, I would make clear that, while it seems observation (I feel pain as a step, I *look* to see what I've stepped on) is the best way I know of to assess reality (and that's all science is - just a formalized version of the same process) - it is by no means something I believe can tell us everything about reality. It is inherently limited and imperfect. But this acknowledgement doesn't tell me that other proposed methods of gathering facts work any better, or even at all. For this, I would need experiences which have shown that to me - of which I have none.
Undoubtedly, we all have different experiences, which leads to our different understandings of our situation - and, again, that's ok
Best wishes!
-Daniel
BrotherMichaelSky
Well-Known Member
well, it won't let me delete this...
Last edited:
BrotherMichaelSky
Well-Known Member
Yeah, i have seen your claim of understanding particle physics in a profound way.
BrotherMichaelSky
Well-Known Member
"Our spirituality is about learning helpful perspectives on that knowledge and integrating the truths of reality as far as we know it, into our Way of being"
Lets see if I have this:
You admit to knowing nothing with assurance, proclaim yourself Humble and Unassuming, then make assumptions and test them with the scientific method. Then you move forward with only verifiable facts based on your assumptions, to deny what you have learned is a source of knowledge.
Then you take that "knowledge and truth" based on assumptions and Scientific testing - that is NOT a source of knowledge - and integrate it into your "way of being" using rituals and practices to imitate the Universe.
And this makes you happier, more content, and your life flourishes regardless of your external conditions?
Well, that doesn't help me understand any better, so.... well, Good Luck with all that.