|
|
|
bngbuck
SFN Addict
USA
2437 Posts |
Posted - 11/13/2011 : 15:11:44 [Permalink]
|
Valiant Dancer.....
| It is my belief that there is exactly zero evidence for the creative spirit I believe in. |
According to the Good Book of wiki;
| Belief is the psychological state in which an individual holds a proposition or premise to be true |
The Gospel of Webster states:
Belief
a:conviction of the truth of some statement or the reality of some being or phenomenon especially when based on an examination of the grounds for accepting it as true or real: |
With these definitions in mind, I think I begin to understand your religious, (better spiritual) posture to be one of internalization of many thought processes, including faith, and externalization of other types of cognition which are concerned with perceptual reality. Is this schism absolute, in the sense that there are two mutually exclusive arenas of perception in your consciousness; or does the inside and the outside of your world-view overlap when you are considering the phenomenon of reality?
If this concept is correct (dualistic cognition), it allows for two different definitions of reality; one a firm, external, evidence-based, reality-is-there-whether-or-not-it-is-perceived; and another converse definition - The Berkeleyan "reality" of subjective realism that posits that existence is synomynous with perception - nothing exists unless it is perceived. Cartesian views of reality preceded this notion - cogito, ergo sum, etc.; in addition to one of Dave's major aggravations, the concept of solipcism, dating back to the Greek sophist, Gorgias.
Do you see any conceptual contradiction in the dualistic position of two different worlds of perception concerning what it is that actually constitutes reality?
It appears to me that a majority of Critical Thinkers characterize themselves as atheists; or, somewaht less forcibly, as agnostics. I am genuinely searching for some insight into the possibility of reconciling the practice of Critical Thinking with the conviction of some form of "spirituality". Some, such as yourself, seem to have accomplished this to your own satisfaction. I am trying to understand if there is denial of some nature in this reconciliation.
Perhaps a better, more inclusive definition of "spirituality" is needed. I am unsure.
Thank you for your participation and helpful commentary. I would certainly welcome any contribution on this subject from others reading this thread.
|
 |
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 11/13/2011 : 17:43:02 [Permalink]
|
| Oh I'm so glad he's gone. His domination of this forum was temporarily driving me away. |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
 Posted - 11/13/2011 : 18:21:09 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by bngbuck
Valiant Dancer.....
| It is my belief that there is exactly zero evidence for the creative spirit I believe in. |
According to the Good Book of wiki;
| Belief is the psychological state in which an individual holds a proposition or premise to be true |
The Gospel of Webster states:
Belief
a:conviction of the truth of some statement or the reality of some being or phenomenon especially when based on an examination of the grounds for accepting it as true or real: |
With these definitions in mind, I think I begin to understand your religious, (better spiritual) posture to be one of internalization of many thought processes, including faith, and externalization of other types of cognition which are concerned with perceptual reality. Is this schism absolute, in the sense that there are two mutually exclusive arenas of perception in your consciousness; or does the inside and the outside of your world-view overlap when you are considering the phenomenon of reality? |
Mutually exclusive, really. I do try my very best to ensure that the physical reality I observe does not mingle with the non-critical "faith" part.
If this concept is correct (dualistic cognition), it allows for two different definitions of reality; one a firm, external, evidence-based, reality-is-there-whether-or-not-it-is-perceived; and another converse definition - The Berkeleyan "reality" of subjective realism that posits that existence is synomynous with perception - nothing exists unless it is perceived. Cartesian views of reality preceded this notion - cogito, ergo sum, etc.; in addition to one of Dave's major aggravations, the concept of solipcism, dating back to the Greek sophist, Gorgias.
Do you see any conceptual contradiction in the dualistic position of two different worlds of perception concerning what it is that actually constitutes reality?
|
Physical reality is the realm of critical thinking.
Spirituality is the realm of feelings and perceived beauty.
I think there are some assumptions (primarily since I HATE existentialism. It is an attempt to join physical reality with spirituality and it always comes out as a Frankenstien's monster of illogic.) such as the sensations that I recieve from my five senses are accurately showing me reality whether I can understand it or not.
It appears to me that a majority of Critical Thinkers characterize themselves as atheists; or, somewaht less forcibly, as agnostics. I am genuinely searching for some insight into the possibility of reconciling the practice of Critical Thinking with the conviction of some form of "spirituality". Some, such as yourself, seem to have accomplished this to your own satisfaction. I am trying to understand if there is denial of some nature in this reconciliation.
Perhaps a better, more inclusive definition of "spirituality" is needed. I am unsure.
Thank you for your participation and helpful commentary. I would certainly welcome any contribution on this subject from others reading this thread.
|
Spirituality does not require a diety.
It's one of those esoteric appreciation of art or natural beauty. Scenes that inspire feelings. In some cases it is a psychological need for some sort of ritual to mark the passing of the yearly cycles. It is ill defined because it is illogical based more on the Id as feeling than anything else.
|
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Religions and cults based on the Necronomicon
