tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post5776039060040107386..comments2023-10-10T08:02:18.073-04:00Comments on Rationally Speaking: Spiritual but not religiousUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger56125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-13647367119961768072010-07-23T16:43:10.232-04:002010-07-23T16:43:10.232-04:00Humanist carries way too much baggage to cede spir...Humanist carries way too much baggage to cede spirituality to the religious. I think your third definition of celebrating and enjoying all that is involved in being an intelligent, socially adept human is rapidly becoming the common meaning of the word. And the phrase spiritual but not religious makes it clear that the religious connotations of spiritual are specifically excluded. <br /><br />And don't knock the woo-woo new agers. I would rather select from them than a bunch of rigid, humorless humanists.J'Carlinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11811626573349505654noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-11987202306522867432010-07-19T15:44:20.947-04:002010-07-19T15:44:20.947-04:00Jared, methinks you concede too much to Paisley.
...Jared, methinks you concede too much to Paisley.<br /><br />For example, according to Gallup World Poll, <a href="http://www.forbes.com/2010/07/14/world-happiest-countries-lifestyle-realestate-gallup-table.html" rel="nofollow">reported in Forbes magazine</a>, "The five happiest countries in the world--Denmark, Finland, Norway, Sweden and the Netherlands--are all clustered in the same region, and all enjoy high levels of prosperity." <br /><br />Now, if Paisley wants to argue that these are also the most religious, spiritual, or Christian countries in the world (say, comparably so with the US, which is only #14 on the list), then that should be entertaining!<br /><br />PS: Note that the Forbes article, while quick to mention the wealth of these Scandinavian countries, is rather quiet about their social-democratic policies (i.e. what the American political right disparages as "socialism", these days often in reference to the Obama White House).mufihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01818949854678769391noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-13690128241220251952010-07-19T13:27:43.685-04:002010-07-19T13:27:43.685-04:00Paisely,
"But the point is that this "s...Paisely,<br /><br />"But the point is that this "sense of community" (more specifically, communion with God and each other) is central to Christianity. It stems directly from the religious beliefs of Christians. And it would appear that secularism is not capable of engendering this same sense of community."<br /><br />Secularism as a worldview is definitively inspecific in regards to community, but it is perfectly capable of providing nourishing communities. As it is, it tends to do so less often than organized religions do, precisely because organized religion requires some form of community whereas secularism only permits these rather than ensures this. But one could just as easily use this as an argument for improving and promulgating secular communities as one could use it to justify people regressing back theology. This therefore isn't a means of isolating the variable of religion. <br /><br />"It could just be that the cultivation of the basic spiritual values of "faith, hope, and love" is positively correlated with peace and contentment."<br /><br />And these values may be easier to endorse by the masses than intellectuals. Dogs often seem way happier than most people are. Intellectuals are often the reverse because they find it more difficult to focus only or mostly on positive things given their natural tendency to explore everything. Through out history religion was an enemy to progress even when the status quo was horrible because religion was used to invoke faith and complacency in whatever already existed. Independent intellectuals couldn't accept this and succeeded, in many ways, in making the world a better place. <br /><br />The very fact that religion does on net now seem to induce greater well-being is reflection of the amount that secularism has forced religion to become more mellow and sweet by denying coercive authority and introducing a spiritual democracy in which more pleasant religious beliefs and practices expanded and consolidated at the expense of more traditional practices based around hate, greed, absolutism, fear, guilt, and intolerance. <br /><br />"I don't believe you can experience genuine happiness based on the "wrong reasons." <br /><br />You can if you define happiness as an emotion. If you don't, and people didn't used to, then you set up conditions for what else qualifies happiness. Aristotle did this extensively, but I don't see how this helps you. If someone argues that there is no more moral value in feeling or even doing better because of beliefs in things that aren't empirical than there is in taking drugs producing the same effect, you come to a dead end. Whether you find this arguement valid or not has to do with your emotions and intuitions.Lycanthropehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07294159664233317086noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-76198510249922864462010-07-17T11:36:27.910-04:002010-07-17T11:36:27.910-04:00The Center for Inquiry published the results of a ...The Center for Inquiry published the results of a study in Free Inquiry magazine about a year ago, which suggests some interesting variations among "the godless." The article is <a href="http://www.secularhumanism.org/index.php?section=library&page=galen_29_5" rel="nofollow">available online</a>, so draw your own conclusions.<br /><br />I'll just point out that, on the topic most closely related to happiness - "life satisfaction" - the article observes that "life satisfaction was lower among the spirituals relative to the other three belief labels" (viz. agnostic, atheist, and humanist). Also: "Many of the nonreligious, particularly those involved with an increasingly visible movement or community characterized by stronger varieties of nonbelief, are actually as well-adjusted and satisfied as the highly religious, with those uncertain of their beliefs showing more distress."<br /><br />However, as the article states, "more research remains to be done", and, besides: (a) the reasons that one cites for one's happiness are not necessarily true (indeed, there might even be a negative correlation); and (b) research (e.g. as I recall from reading <a href="http://www.amazon.com/How-Happiness-Scientific-Approach-Getting/dp/159420148X" rel="nofollow">this book</a> a while back) also suggests an innate "set point", which is a strong (albeit, not the only) influence in determining one's happiness and which suggests that reason and belief play at most minor roles.mufihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01818949854678769391noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-7925525256435738382010-07-14T15:57:23.859-04:002010-07-14T15:57:23.859-04:00Jarred Croft: "If it is simply a matter of in...Jarred Croft: "<i>If it is simply a matter of infrastructure and social organization, then faith isn't an essential ingredient.<br /><br />Community can exist with or without faith, and if we are trying to isolate the effect of faith alone, community gets in the way. Are atheists less happy because they don't have secular churches or because they don't have faith?</i>"<br /><br />But the point is that this "sense of community" (more specifically, <i>communion</i> with God and each other) is central to Christianity. It stems directly from the religious beliefs of Christians. And it would appear that secularism is not capable of engendering this same sense of community.<br /><br />Jared Croft: "<i>Another thing to look at would be intelligence and education's effect on happiness. Half the population has an IQ 100 or below, and intelligence and education and atheism, and indeed intellectualism, are positively correlated. For obvious reasons, it is easier for an atheist to feel isolated than the average person who has an easier time relating to the general populace owing to more shared interests and similar level of cognitive function. Even a smart religious person can have this sort of problem, but the religious population is more generalized. Albeit, this is largely corrected for by the fact that your studies didn't even look at atheists per say. They just looked at non-religious people, who make up around 10% of the US population. Far less are self-described atheists, whom in turn make up only a small portion of this demographic.</i>"<br /><br />It could just be that the cultivation of the basic spiritual values of "faith, hope, and love" is positively correlated with peace and contentment.<br /><br />Jared Croft: "<i>The general idea is that the moral value of being happy is contingent upon being happy for a good reason.</i>"<br /><br />I don't believe you can experience genuine happiness based on the "wrong reasons."Paisleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15090734283426391023noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-64019372208093773212010-07-13T23:40:26.756-04:002010-07-13T23:40:26.756-04:00Paisley,
"I would argue that commitment to t...Paisley,<br /><br />"I would argue that commitment to the faith community is a basic religious belief and value. It certainly is in Christianity."<br /><br />If it is simply a matter of infrastructure and social organization, then faith isn't an essential ingredient.<br /><br />Community can exist with or without faith, and if we are trying to isolate the effect of faith alone, community gets in the way. Are atheists less happy because they don't have secular churches or because they don't have faith? <br /><br />I'd hazard to guess that in the rare instances wherein atheists have churches specifically tailored to them, like the NYC ethical society for instance, the happiness gap would be smaller or non-existent. Perhaps it would even be in their favor. We can't really know without studying rare instances such as that. <br /><br />Another thing to look at would be intelligence and education's effect on happiness. Half the population has an IQ 100 or below, and intelligence and education and atheism, and indeed intellectualism, are positively correlated. For obvious reasons, it is easier for an atheist to feel isolated than the average person who has an easier time relating to the general populace owing to more shared interests and similar level of cognitive function. Even a smart religious person can have this sort of problem, but the religious population is more generalized. Albeit, this is largely corrected for by the fact that your studies didn't even look at atheists per say. They just looked at non-religious people, who make up around 10% of the US population. Far less are self-described atheists, whom in turn make up only a small portion of this demographic. <br /><br />"It could be. It could also be that those who are prone to be religious are more prone to be happy."<br /><br />Same thing. The problem is how do you isolate the effect of faith from the effect of personality? <br /><br />"What is a "non-religious spiritualist?"<br /><br />Someone who isn't a member of any organized religion, who maybe doesn't believe in God but does believe in the soul and other supernatural things. It isn't, in the meaning we're using, a word with a precise definition, but it is definitely wrong in this context to use it as a synonym for being religious. If this all sounds hazy to you, it is, but it's also in vogue. This isn't something Massimo just made up. <br /><br />"I suspect the social scientists or researchers are the ones who ultimately made this evaluation, not the people involved in the study."<br /><br />In the case of the polls they were. However, upon rereading your post with the quote, it's apparent a lot of work was done that was less superficial than that and which came to the same conclusion.<br /><br />"What drugs are you referring to? Can you be more specific?"<br /><br />Imagine a version of the drug ecstasy that didn't harm your health in anyway. Should you take it because it makes you feel good? Should you believe in God because it makes you feel good to? The general idea is that the moral value of being happy is contingent upon being happy for a good reason. This is why a life of ubiquitous drug induced would not be morally positive. If, as many atheists believe, all tales and conceptions of divinities are manifestly at best speculative rather than empirically based then the analogy holds.Lycanthropehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07294159664233317086noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-70001007172310966372010-07-13T18:53:52.394-04:002010-07-13T18:53:52.394-04:00Massimo: "If by spiritual we mean something t...Massimo: "<i>If by spiritual we mean something truly transcendental, beyond matter/energy, I have no evidence it exists.</i>"<br /><br />What objective evidence do you have that our first-person experience of own subjectivity is physical (i.e. mass/energy)?Paisleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15090734283426391023noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-68408898147107372632010-07-13T17:06:06.374-04:002010-07-13T17:06:06.374-04:00Christopher, apologies accepted, no problem. Well,...Christopher, apologies accepted, no problem. Well, what can I say, I am a thorough going materialist of the western tradition. Any time I looked into the eastern one I didn't find anything of substance that would sway me in that direction. If by spiritual we mean something truly transcendental, beyond matter/energy, I have no evidence it exists, and I consider that kind of talk to be fluffy. If we mean instead the ability of human beings to feel emotions, awe, inspiration, etc. then of course we do have that, all of us, secular and religious people included.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09099460671669064269noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-10793327351694020722010-07-13T15:17:24.796-04:002010-07-13T15:17:24.796-04:00I am sorry, I did not mean to write "used to ...I am sorry, I did not mean to write "used to enjoy your work," and I realised that this came off in a way that was not productive and insulting.<br /><br />But, I was really upset when I wrote this. Why? Well, first, in your work from what I can tell, you strictly adhere to Western thinking. Western thought is, as far as I know, the one of the philosophies least versed and concerned with spirituality. Also, Western ideas about spirituality are so few of SO MANY others. What I wanted to recommend is that you expand your personal and philosophical ideas of spirituality (you may have, but I have not reflected in anything you have written) to do spirituality justice. Here are two interesting questions: Do you think that spirituality has any beneficial role in human society? Can humanists exist without spirituality? (The latter question is begging for a "yes," which is problematic because that would lead any humanist to believe in The Answer.)<br /><br />In addition, when writing for the general public, I think that we must hold each other MORE responsible since we have privilege and power with our earned educational capital. This capital must be used with caution because many people (mis?)take power for truth, will reference such truths as absolute, and thus perpetuate and pontificate about their uncritical beliefs. (I am not arguing that what you wrote was wrong, just somewhat narrow.) I just think posts like this accommodate the view of nearly ALL scientists I know that are ardent atheist empiricists. This has shown to be very problematic for western science both personally and politically. (I have been spending tens of hours contemplating the latter, which I would love to discuss.) This is largely why most post was more reactionary and less substantive.<br /><br />Again, my apologies, and I do respect you and your work very much.Christopher Moorehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06151099773625000334noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-34547955710110604122010-07-13T12:31:07.203-04:002010-07-13T12:31:07.203-04:00Christopher,
wow, big words and big accusations! ...Christopher,<br /><br />wow, big words and big accusations! First off, do you really expect citations to the primary literature in a blog post aiming at the general public? Second, citations about what? I am making a personal and philosophical point, not one relative to research on spiritual beliefs. What sort of references would you suggest, and apropos of what, exactly?Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09099460671669064269noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-85723072007217223472010-07-13T11:55:24.621-04:002010-07-13T11:55:24.621-04:00Massimo, until I began to RSS this blog, I used to...Massimo, until I began to RSS this blog, I used to enjoy your work. I am a 27-year-old Ph.D. in an EEB program in the US, and have read your latest book (Extended Synthesis). I cannot believe how poorly studied you are in some of what you criticize. For instance, in this article, YOU DON'T HAVE A SINGLE REFERENCE FROM ANYBODY THAT DOES SPIRITUAL WORK. There are intellectuals and others in the academy (what most other academics value the most) that would call you out for your ignorance.Christopher Moorehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06151099773625000334noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-53522006430518444252010-07-13T02:06:07.083-04:002010-07-13T02:06:07.083-04:00Jared Croft: "People who are religious, by vi...Jared Croft: "<i>People who are religious, by virtue of the sense of community engendered in religious institutions like churches, have advantages that do not directly stem from religious beliefs.</i>"<br /><br />I would argue that commitment to the faith community is a basic religious belief and value. It certainly is in Christianity.<br /><br />Jared Croft: "<i>Furthermore, it may be that the type of people who are prone to become very religious are inherently also the type of people more prone to be happy.</i>"<br /><br />It could be. It could also be that those who are prone to be religious are more prone to be happy. (Keep in mind that I am using the term "religious" here to be interchangeable with "spiritual.")<br /><br />Jared Croft: "<i>Your studies also don't look at non-religious spiritualists, they look at highly committed religious people which is a separate category.</i>"<br /><br />What is a "non-religious spiritualist?"<br /><br />Jared Croft: "<i>As Massimo implies, people aren't necessarily good at judging their own happiness nor do different people, and different types of people, necessarily judge it by the same standards.</i>"<br /><br />I suspect the social scientists or researchers are the ones who ultimately made this evaluation, not the people involved in the study.<br /><br />Jared Croft: "<i>All this having been said, let's assume your right and being religious/spiritual makes us on average happier. If this happiness is built on false pretenses rather than legitimate causes, then what, besides its lack of negative health side effects, makes it any different than just taking drugs to elicit the same happiness?</i>"<br /><br />What drugs are you referring to? Can you be more specific?<br /><br />Jared Croft: "<i>Isn't it the case that while happiness and suffering are a component of morality, they are not all that there is to it?</i>"<br /><br />I am not sure what you are asking here, but I do see our present emotional state as providing feedback as to whether we are on course or not. What criteria do you use?Paisleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15090734283426391023noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-78621306563133330082010-07-12T21:38:30.198-04:002010-07-12T21:38:30.198-04:00strangebeasty: "Look again, Paisley. It's...strangebeasty: "<i>Look again, Paisley. It's obvious from the excerpt you provided that the "materialism" it refers to, and which it is easy to connect with consumerism, is the popular materialism which consists in valuing objects, property, and status over persons, experiences, and meaningful relationships. This is in no way necessitated by adherence to scientific or philosophical materialism.</i>"<br /><br />Agreed. But I never said that it was "necessitated." I simply stated that I believe there is connection. Upon further reflection, I probably should have stated it somewhat differently. "<i>There appears to be an interconnection (or feedback loop) between science, technology, capitalism, and materialism.</i>"Paisleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15090734283426391023noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-69077659053177964562010-07-12T20:28:30.747-04:002010-07-12T20:28:30.747-04:00Massimo: "Paisley, you seem to be getting off...Massimo: "<i>Paisley, you seem to be getting off topic. At any rate, research on happiness is pretty dicey, especially when based on self reports.</i>"<br /><br />Okay, but I can make the same argument for the research showing that "<i>atheists are just as moral as religious believers.</i>"<br /><br />Massimo: "<i>Besides, even if believing in something that doesn't exist makes people feel better (jee, what a radical notion!) that says precisely nothing about the existence of whatever it is they believe in, or about their rationality.</i>"<br /><br />It does say something about the pragmatic value of the belief. And this is <i>no</i> small thing. "Happiness" is big business. This is why the antidepressant drug business is a multi-billion dollar industry. And since you are bringing up the subject of rationality, what exactly is your rational basis for asserting that dualism is delusionary?Paisleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15090734283426391023noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-79232133649423349002010-07-11T23:24:08.609-04:002010-07-11T23:24:08.609-04:00Paisley,
People who are religious, by virtue of ...Paisley, <br /><br />People who are religious, by virtue of the sense of community engendered in religious institutions like churches, have advantages that do not directly stem from religious beliefs. Furthermore, it may be that the type of people who are prone to become very religious are inherently also the type of people more prone to be happy. <br /><br />Your studies also don't look at non-religious spiritualists, they look at highly committed religious people which is a separate category.<br /><br />As Massimo implies, people aren't necessarily good at judging their own happiness nor do different people, and different types of people, necessarily judge it by the same standards. <br /><br />All this having been said, let's assume your right and being religious/spiritual makes us on average happier. If this happiness is built on false pretenses rather than legitimate causes, then what, besides its lack of negative health side effects, makes it any different than just taking drugs to elicit the same happiness? Isn't it the case that while happiness and suffering are a component of morality, they are not all that there is to it?Lycanthropehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07294159664233317086noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-49237366623643045162010-07-11T17:40:55.744-04:002010-07-11T17:40:55.744-04:00@Paisley
The study you posted once again refers to...@Paisley<br />The study you posted once again refers to the popular economic form of materialism rather than scientific or philosophical materialism. Do you understand that the word "materialism" has different meanings?strangebeastyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17923942326244143108noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-87802487038911034892010-07-11T17:16:10.441-04:002010-07-11T17:16:10.441-04:00Paisley, you seem to be getting off topic. At any ...Paisley, you seem to be getting off topic. At any rate, research on happiness is pretty dicey, especially when based on self reports. Besides, even if believing in something that doesn't exist makes people feel better (jee, what a radical notion!) that says precisely nothing about the existence of whatever it is they believe in, or about their rationality.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09099460671669064269noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-5508625159878107802010-07-10T22:02:11.970-04:002010-07-10T22:02:11.970-04:00"Is spiritual the new supernatural?"
A ..."Is spiritual the new supernatural?"<br /><br />A post-new-age brand of bland, generic spirituality is on the upsurge among our better educated demographics and it may be finding some sympathy within the progressive community.<br /><br />I recognize the importance of an "inner life", too, but does it have to be full of superstition and magical thinking to be valuable and poignant?<br /><br />Many of my peers seem to use “spirituality” as a device by which they can dodge having to rationally defend an assortment of nebulous or “universalist” articles of faith. Their unconscious intuition tells them that if they don’t spell out their magical thinking in so many words they won’t have to defend something which they never explicitly expose to rational thought.<br /><br />I’m not politely buying it anymore.<br /><br />Poor Richard<br /><br />http://almanac2010.wordpress.com/spiritual-new-supernatural/<br /><br />Poor Richard's Almanack 2010<br />(http://almanac2010.wordpress.com/)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-16919581946332082082010-07-10T21:02:44.810-04:002010-07-10T21:02:44.810-04:00Massimo: "Paisley, really? That seems like ve...Massimo: "<i>Paisley, really? That seems like very weak evidence indeed!</i>"<br /><br />Weak evidence is better than no evidence at all. And you did not provide any evidence whatsoever to support your assertions.<br /><br />There is extensive evidence to suggest that religiously and/or spiritually committed people are happier.<br /><br />"<i>Surveys by Gallup, the National Opinion Research Center and the Pew Organization conclude that spiritually committed people are twice as likely to report being "very happy" than the least religiously committed people.[26] An analysis of over 200 social studies contends that "high religiousness predicts a lower risk of depression and drug abuse and fewer suicide attempts, and more reports of satisfaction with sex life and a sense of well-being,"[27] and a review of 498 studies published in peer-reviewed journals concluded that a large majority of them showed a positive correlation between religious commitment and higher levels of perceived well-being and self-esteem and lower levels of hypertension, depression, and clinical delinquency.[28][29]</i>"<br /><br />(source: Wikipedia: "<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Happiness" rel="nofollow">Happiness</a>")<br /><br />There is evidence that links materialism with depression and anger.<br /><br />"<a href="http://andyhifi.50webs.com/materialism.htm" rel="nofollow">Materialism Link to Depression and Anger - Study</a>"<br /><br />Desiring someone who has spiritual values is a legitimate and valid criterion in selecting a prospective mate. Spiritually-committed people are more likely to be happy and there are studies to back this up.Paisleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15090734283426391023noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-57164986015311797682010-07-10T20:53:13.232-04:002010-07-10T20:53:13.232-04:00Paisley,
"Well, I do. I think there is a con...Paisley,<br /><br />"Well, I do. I think there is a connection between scientific materialism and materialistic values."<br /><br />As Massimo said, correlation doesn't prove causation. That's perhaps the most basic law of statistics, and in any statistics course it's one of the first things your taught. E.g. there is a correlation between the consumption of ice cream and the rate at which rape is committed, but this is because more ice cream is consumed when its hotter outside and so are more rapes. <br /><br />Also, Europe is less consumerist and capitalistic in general than the US is, in spite of it being more secular, so it follows that if scientific materialism leads to possessional materialism (something you've yet to establish) then other variables exist which can overpower and mask this effect. <br /><br />Delving into speculative theory, I think that people who are obsessed with science, philosophy, truth, knowledge, and so forth would be less consumerist because these intellectual pursuits necessarily distract from, and arguably trivialize through reflection, the desire to be as rich as possible at whatever expense to the life of the mind and heart.<br /><br />Skeptics, scientists, philosophers, and so forth rarely make much money, so these career paths clearly aren't appropriate for people whose main objective is to become rich.Lycanthropehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07294159664233317086noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-14023406626922642592010-07-10T19:43:27.966-04:002010-07-10T19:43:27.966-04:00I always found the "spiritual but not religio...I always found the "spiritual but not religious" to be synonymous with vitalism.Khttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12460075520187803334noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-6233235266370400882010-07-10T18:04:39.921-04:002010-07-10T18:04:39.921-04:00Look again, Paisley. It's obvious from the exc...Look again, Paisley. It's obvious from the excerpt you provided that the "materialism" it refers to, and which it is easy to connect with consumerism, is the popular materialism which consists in valuing objects, property, and status over persons, experiences, and meaningful relationships. This is in no way necessitated by adherence to scientific or philosophical materialism.strangebeastyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17923942326244143108noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-17890686377887064422010-07-10T16:31:42.785-04:002010-07-10T16:31:42.785-04:00Kimpatsu, sorry but I'm afraid that was an eff...Kimpatsu, sorry but I'm afraid that was an effect of my ipad's overeager spell checker...Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09099460671669064269noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-50999924924786074712010-07-10T16:29:04.607-04:002010-07-10T16:29:04.607-04:00Paisley, really? That seems like very weak evidenc...Paisley, really? That seems like very weak evidence indeed! How did they measure 'the rise of materialism'? How do we tell whether the (alleged) connection between materialism and consumerism is correlational or causal?Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09099460671669064269noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-81832164377505241962010-07-10T14:58:21.579-04:002010-07-10T14:58:21.579-04:00Massimo,
I can say I am "spiritual" in ...Massimo,<br /><br />I can say I am "spiritual" in a sense, and definitely not religious. I reject all dogmatic religions and literal interpretation of their "holy" books. On the other hand, there are reasons to believe that more exists than we can know based purely upon materialism. For example, the laws of nature are apparently such as to produce a dynamic, ever-changing universe which has produced ever more complex material configurations leading to life, and continuing on to produce ever more complex and capable life forms. The fact that the laws of nature are so fine tuned as to produce this directional trend of growth over billions of years suggests that there may be some great intelligence behind it all, which is likely beyond our ability to even begin to understand. Also, just intuitively, it seems that there is something more to this universe than "matter and energy."<br /><br />I like reading your posts, Massimo, because you express yourself clearly, logically, honestly, and with lots of insight. I applaud you, Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, and atheists in general for your work against fundamentalist and neo-fundamentalist religions. <br /><br />However, IMO agnosticism is a far more rational position than atheism.Fred Pauserhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17962091539150853738noreply@blogger.com