This is what I was trying to get at, if we do different things to try to study the different aspects of spirituality, wouldn't we reach different conclusions about it?
Ideally, if we were both following sound and correct processes of study, did not allow bias or preconceptions to pollute our process, and had thetime and ability to learn everything there is to know about the subject, our conclusions wold be he same.
You may have done this already before, but could you define exactly what you mean by 'spirituality' as specifically as possible?
Essentially having a connection with the aspect of divinity set down by your particular spiritual system and living as close to in tune with it as possible. For a pagan, this would mean living their ife in tune with the natural cycles of the earth. For a Christian, this would mean living their life as closely to the way Jesus lived his as possible.
What does a 'spiritual experience' constitute, and how do you know it's an authentic 'spiritual experience' and not just in your imagination? What is the difference between the guy who says he speaks to God and people who just have these 'religious experiences'? This is where consistent standards for everyone are important.
You seem to be implying "the guy who says he speaks to god" is crazy person, and in this case most likely schizophrenic. The difference is that that person's evaluations of
many aspects of reality cannot be trusted, as his brain does not work correctly.
You seem to have contradicted yourself "consistent standards", but not the same for everyone". Wouldn't those be inconsistent standards?
Fair enough. This becomes an issue in terminology - I meant that a person should use the same standards they would use for evaluating anything else as they do for this. The standards are consistent in relation to other things the person may be evaluating, but not in regard to the entire population
Yes, but I'd argue that most people are not very well versed in such techniques, so most people who experience these kinds of feelings (which are then reinforced by our society) automatically attribute them to their religion and mark it up to a 'religious experience' without any actual evidence other than the experience itself. That doesn't seem like a very good way to acquire knowledge to me.
Which is why experts recommend that people take classes, workshops, or at least read books on the subject(also because they want their money, but there are honest people and shysters in most professions.).
I'm not using the word 'imagination' in that context here. You can swap it out with the phrase "in my head" or "in my mind" if you want, the question still remains unanswered;
"
In our head" as you put it, is also simply another aspect of our reality. The realms of thought and consciousness can and do have very real effects on the physical world, even if nothing more than an idea can be conceptualized and then brought into existence by hands working toward that goal. In short, an "
in our head" spiritual experience is a "real" spiritual experience. There is no distinction between the two
.
'How would I know what I'm feeling is actually something "spiritual" and not in my head/mind?'
Barring a mental disorder such as Schizophrenia, there's little distinction.
What do you have to support that? What is the 'psyche and emotional body'?
The psyche and the emotions. What do you mean by what do I have to support that? Is it not widely known(
especially among atheists) that much of religion and spirituality is an aspect of psychology?
So the only standard you use to determine if someone is having a 'religious experience' (be it 100% made up in their own mind or not) is if it has measurable effects on their physical body?
No. I was pointing out one of the ways spirituality can be seen to affect people physically. I wouldn't use that to quantify a religious experience.
This seems to be a pretty common misconception contrasting between the two, science and religion. Personal experiences are paramount for theists, it essentally forms the foundation of their entire faith, but personal experiences don't amount to anything in science, they are not proof or evidence of anything because they are individual to the person having the experience.
Which is why science cannot quantify religion or spirituality. This comes down to my original discussion with MP where I pointed out that I can accept personal experience as being something real, and you cannot. I'm not a scientist by profession, but if I were, I would not attempt to use this reasoning in my work.
I cannot replicate a feeling you had that changed your mind or strengthened your existing belief during something you experienced, so bringing it to the table won't mean a thing to me.
I know. I said that as the answer to your original question.
The objective focus of science ensures the evidence get's analyzed without envoking emotional responses.
Religion/Spirituality ≠ Science
How could you yourself accept that?
Repeated results.
I tell people this all the time, I'll tell you now...
Even if I was 100% sure God existed, if it demanded obedience, demanded to be worshiped, gave innocent people terrible diseases, caused, or at the least didn't prevent things like famines, plagues, war, etc., basically, if the God of the Bible actually did exist, and I was 100% sure, I wouldn't follow it or worship it or any of that because all that stuff is wrong, it doesn't matter to me that God is in charge of it, it's still wrong. Deep down, I trust myself more than I trust any other person on the planet, I've thought long and hard about these topics, and I know that a being capable of creating existence, creating love, would not require such absurd things. It's that simple. If I stood before that God on some day of judgment at the end of my life and it asked me why I didn't worship it or why I didn't acknowledge that homosexuality is a sin, I would tell it because it's wrong.
Good on you. I agree 100%.
It's really only monotheistic religions that require worship of such a deity. Depending on your views, These things you referenced are simply parts of nature. Famine and disease are necessary to avoid overpopulation, war is a natural tendency of many different animals that build social structures in the conflict over resources and territory.
To a traditional or ancient polytheist, there would be gods who hold dominion over things such as disease, famine, and war. The gods of war were indeed worshipped, because while many people can see the ills of war, war was a very real part of life, and gaining the favor of a war god was one way of ensuring your tribe's survival. The gods who held domain over things such as famine and disease weren't worshipped, but appeased.
I won't close the thread, we've got a good discussion going
Cool. Congrats on your promotion to Mod by the way; I didn't notice that until Oly pointed it out.