Why Don't People Believe?

[Resha Caner]

This is a very narrow question (at least as I ask it). Hence, I understand that it will be difficult to get a serious answer, but I thought I'd give it a try.

Let's start with the antithesis - physicalism - that there is nothing to believe in. I always liked the comment by Stephen Barr in his article "The Soul and Its Enemies"

"Stephen Hawking worried that if physics produced a 'theory of everything' then that theory would have to explain why some people believed in it and some didn't; and their respective beliefs would then be the inevitable consequence of physical processes taking place in their brains rather than the validity of their reasoning."

I get the physicalist view, though I don't agree with it, and don't think it will ever get anywhere in explaining anything because of the above conundrum. But can we put that aside for now?

I'm asking this question of those who do believe in something spiritual. Given that you believe the spiritual exists, and given that not everyone agrees on what the spiritual is, how do you explain these differences?

[Fido]

I live in a spiritual world, and I am a spiritual man...It just does not weigh much, and I never put my finger on the scale....

[Resha Caner]

Originally Posted by Fido

I live in a spiritual world, and I am a spiritual man...It just does not weigh much, and I never put my finger on the scale....

That sounds poetic, but I'm not sure what it means. Do you mean, "Never thought about it and don't really care"?

[ihavenoidea]

Hawking is probably talking about determinism. In this case, everything would be "inevitable" and not just our beliefs. But if we were to come upon an equation that explained everything, that would not imply that physicalism cannot be true, it would only mean that any person who comes to believe in physicalism would do so inevitably.

I think?

[Fido]

Originally Posted by Resha Caner

That sounds poetic, but I'm not sure what it means. Do you mean, "Never thought about it and don't really care"?

I think about everything, and care over much... You mention the soul...What we call soul the Greeks called Anima, but what we think of as animation we very often do think of as the soul... Or as Reasen de Etre, purpose, though I would just say reason... The fact is, the true spiritual world we deal in is full of moral realities, which we think of as essential to our well being, including forms like virtue, liberty, or justice... I very much deal with these spiritual realities, and beyond that, of infinites, like God, or eternity, or existence; I give very little time or effort... It is because the essentials of meaning are lacking...I can give these infinites some meaning, but not being....I can share my meaning out of my life with infinites, but that is putting my own finger on the scale of reason because, in fact, I can know no more of infinites than what I can know of reality around me.

[Resha Caner]

Originally Posted by Fido

I think about everything, and care over much... You mention the soul...What we call soul the Greeks called Anima, but what we think of as animation we very often do think of as the soul... Or as Reasen de Etre, purpose, though I would just say reason... The fact is, the true spiritual world we deal in is full of moral realities, which we think of as essential to our well being, including forms like virtue, liberty, or justice... I very much deal with these spiritual realities, and beyond that, of infinites, like God, or eternity, or existence; I give very little time or effort... It is because the essentials of meaning are lacking...I can give these infinites some meaning, but not being....I can share my meaning out of my life with infinites, but that is putting my own finger on the scale of reason because, in fact, I can know no more of infinites than what I can know of reality around me.

Fido, your style seems a bit turgid to me. That's not a criticism, per se, and I'll do my best to get used to it. I'm just giving you fair warning that I'm having to translate everything you say, so my interpretations may be off. You'll need to clarify if I miss the mark.

I'll take your answer to my question as "yes". So, at least with respect to God, you don't give it much thought. Your reason seems to be the old standby that because God is infinite, we can't know him. As I've said before, I consider that a misconstrual of what infinity is. That can be one aspect we discuss ...

or we can discuss your mention of "forms". There I would also disagree with your assertion that these are "moral realities" (in the sense that "virtue" exists as a form). But, if you say that forms are realties, what explains the difference in people's approach to virtue, liberty, justice, etc.?

[Khethil]

Originally Posted by Resha Caner

...Given that you believe the spiritual exists, and given that not everyone agrees on what the spiritual is, how do you explain these differences?

The definition of spiritual is has seven sub-definitions; each referring to other concepts. Each of those, cross referenced, have multiple definitions. With such a large playing field, could you clarify what you mean by believing, "... the spiritual exists" a little more specifically?

Thanks

[Resha Caner]

I didn't realize the number of definitions could be limited to 7. That's a curious statement by itself. But, I intentionally made a broad statement about spirituality. I didn't want to be accused of excluding anyone, because, broad as my statement was, my impression is that only a narrow slice of those here assembled believe in anything spiritual.

At this point, all I meant by it was a belief that something non-physical exists.

But maybe here we come to our first impass. What does it matter how we define the spiritual? Whether there are 7 or 77 divisions? If it exists, it is what it is regardless of how we define it.

[Fido]

[

quote=Resha Caner;57918]Fido, your style seems a bit turgid to me. That's not a criticism, per se, and I'll do my best to get used to it. I'm just giving you fair warning that I'm having to translate everything you say, so my interpretations may be off. You'll need to clarify if I miss the mark.

I'll take your answer to my question as "yes". So, at least with respect to God, you don't give it much thought. Your reason seems to be the old standby that because God is infinite, we can't know him. As I've said before, I consider that a misconstrual of what infinity is. That can be one aspect we discuss ...

About right...Though I give a lot of thought to God, at least the God I was raised to, and have a large library of theology, and even try to learn enough Greek to read the New testament in the Greek, which I also have a copy of, and I read constantly on the subject, even of Islam, the Holy Q'uran of which I have two copies, one anotated...But it is all no more than reading fantasy...I read it to fairly compare the behavior of those who say they believe with their behavior...I do it for a lesson in Morality, since if Christianity is a community, within that community there should be moral behavior...

or we can discuss your mention of "forms". There I would also disagree with your assertion that these are "moral realities" (in the sense that "virtue" exists as a form). But, if you say that forms are realties, what explains the difference in people's approach to virtue, liberty, justice, etc.?

[/quote]
Just like God, virtue has as much reality as people give it...The problem with moral forms is exactly the problem that exists with God, since we cannot produce the thing, but feel we cannot live without it, how can we show its existence, and find the amount of the moral form people must have in their lives for their best health and survival... People who deal in physics have it easy by comparison... Moralists have their work cut out for them; even while a child could lift a yard of justice with his finger...

[Khethil]

Originally Posted by Resha Caner

I didn't realize the number of definitions could be limited to 7. That's a curious statement by itself.

Curious? Then allow me to introduce you to a friend of mine; the Dictionary (you can find one here). There is no need for an adversarialism here Resha; I'm enjoining you on this discussion - not refuting.

Originally Posted by Resha Caner

But, I intentionally made a broad statement about spirituality. I didn't want to be accused of excluding anyone, because, broad as my statement was, my impression is that only a narrow slice of those here assembled believe in anything spiritual.

I understand; and I think that's an inclusive and worthy intent. The only problem is that as we discuss matters of spirituality there inevitably comes a point where a light goes on somewhere - inside someone's head - and we realize we're all talking about something slightly different.

I don't want, nor was it my intent, to muddle your question. I think that (as it applies to any 'flavor' of spirituality) its a find discussion to have. I only ask for clarification to avoid multiple directions. Referring back to your 'curious' wonder at there being different definitions of spirituality, take this for instance.

• Spirituality can, in one sense, be said that which refers to 'relating to the spirit'
• Spirit, also carries a sub definition of "relating to the intelligent or sentient part of a person"
• So I might respond to your question from the purely intelligence aspect

I might also refer to ghosts, religion, any imagined supernatural being and so on. With so much variance, I don't think to ask for a little clarification is so strange. I see you've been with us a while, can you imagine how many different directions we might talk in - all at once?

Originally Posted by Resha Caner

But maybe here we come to our first impass. What does it matter how we define the spiritual? Whether there are 7 or 77 divisions? If it exists, it is what it is regardless of how we define it.

Without common understanding about what we're talking about, conversation is confused at best and intellectually-torturous at worst. So I guess my answer would be: Yes, it does matter - but only if we want to have anything akin to a coherent discussion.

Thanks