# What is this "Spirituality" you Earthmen speak of? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [June 27, 2005, 12:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-this-spirituality-you-earthmen-speak-of/310029 "2005-06-27T12:51:03Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 16
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [July 6, 2005, 11:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-this-spirituality-you-earthmen-speak-of/310029/301 "2005-07-06T23:17:09Z")
> [@Kalhoun](#): > > Even so, how does goodness = the laws of perception? In that goodness is in the eye of the beholder, I suppose there’s some truth to it. For instance…I am a firm believer that it is sometimes a good thing to abort a fetus. However, I know there are those who will say it can never be a good thing. I just don’t get the connection. As Mary Devereaux, one of the best modern philosophical writers (in my opinion) puts it: “Most philosophers today, including those whose philosophical interests lie in scientific and technical areas, recognize the importance of value theory. Aesthetics is part of value theory, and if the theory of value is philosophically important, aesthetics is philosophical important, too. How can philosophers aspire to understand the nature of value without attention to aesthetic value?” — _The Philosophical Status of Aesthetics_ The aesthetic essence of goodness is to edify. Those who value edification value goodness. The essence of its opposite, evil, is to destroy. Those who value destruction value evil. ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [July 6, 2005, 11:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-this-spirituality-you-earthmen-speak-of/310029/302 "2005-07-06T23:50:25Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > This is exactly what I’m trying to prevent. If I (and/or my representative government) takes no action to alleviate poverty and oppression world wide, then there is a greatly enhanced chance that the victims of poverty and oppression will turn to crime or violence to survive. If as many people as possible have their health, basic human rights, and the opportunity to become prosperous, then they are far less likely to break into my allegorical house to steal my hypothetical DVD player. It’s about dam time, where have you been? :mad: … I don’t know how many of the posts you’ve read but I agree with you. I think providing an opportunity to those we share a society with to have decent housing and gainful employment that allows them to provide the essentials and have some personal pride, is a great way to promote peace and reduce crime.I’m sure it wouldn’t be perfect but I’d love to give it a shot. > [@](#): > > And you have a guarantee of life after death? At least I have _some_ real life examples of people acting out of truly altruistic motives. What have you got? Well hell yeah I have. A very official looking document with all scrolly stuff around the edges that says I get nice place on one of the golden streets of Heaven. I got it when I donanted $200 to a TV minister with a really bad hair piece. I suppose a blasphemer like you will say it’s worthless. okay…okay…I got nuttin’ **Kalhoun** and **Nature’s Call** among others, have helped me pull it together and helped answer my questions. I think any belief, sense of purpose and hope that I might describe as spiritual is no better or worse than any belief, hope or sense of purpose that any atheist has. We may describe the source differently but surely we shouldn’t let semantics seperate us from our common purpose. I like it. 🙂 > [@](#): > > Who ever said that’s how people _are_? I’m talking about how people _should be_. Atheists can be idealists, too. Great!! 🙂 > [@](#): > > As to which philosophy is most reflected in the real world, I humbly point out that yours has been the dominant paradigm for the whole of human history, and it’s not done such a good job of eliminating war, poverty, prejudice, or reality television, has it? Deja Vu! I used a very similar arguement when discussing different beliefs with a hard core born again Christian. > [@](#): > > I don’t know for a fact that mine would be any better, but I can scarcely imagine it being much worse. God only knows 😃 Seriously, the light went on when I realized that folks who put time and energy into helping others and trying to improve the quality of life for the less fortunate , without any expectation of some heavenly reward are more unselfish than those who expect a reward. In fact there’s a section in the bible I’ve gone to often where Jesus tells people they are getting a reward for visiting him in prison, and feeding him when he was hungry, etc. They ask when did we see you ? He explains that when they did it to anyone they did it to him. " My take on this is that if they didn’t know why they were being rewarded then they must not have been Christians. It’s not about a heavenly reward for me. It’s about the truth, of how things work and who we are in relation to each other. If we see the essentials of this life the same way then any question of an afterlife can wait until we get there. ---
**Author:** ![Kalhoun](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/3bc359/32.png) [@Kalhoun](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kalhoun)\ **Post date:** [July 7, 2005, 6:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-this-spirituality-you-earthmen-speak-of/310029/303 "2005-07-07T06:20:45Z")
> [@Liberal](#): > > As Mary Devereaux, one of the best modern philosophical writers (in my opinion) puts it: “Most philosophers today, including those whose philosophical interests lie in scientific and technical areas, recognize the importance of value theory. Aesthetics is part of value theory, and if the theory of value is philosophically important, aesthetics is philosophical important, too. How can philosophers aspire to understand the nature of value without attention to aesthetic value?” — _The Philosophical Status of Aesthetics_ > > The aesthetic essence of goodness is to edify. Those who value edification value goodness. The essence of its opposite, evil, is to destroy. Those who value destruction value evil. Gotchya. Thanks for the clarification. ---
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [July 7, 2005, 3:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-this-spirituality-you-earthmen-speak-of/310029/304 "2005-07-07T15:28:31Z")
> [@lekatt](#): > > Some place you will never think to look. All in your head? ---
**Author:** ![monavis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e0b2c6/32.png) [@monavis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/monavis)\ **Post date:** [July 8, 2005, 9:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-this-spirituality-you-earthmen-speak-of/310029/305 "2005-07-08T09:40:30Z")
> [@cosmosdan](#): > > **Scott** made a similar statement and I already responded. God hasn’t bribed me with anything. For me it’s about discovering the truth of who we really are. Are we primarily these physical bodies or are we primarily spiritual beings who temporarily inhabit these bodies? > > I’m asking what the purpose of morals are for those who really believe that we are not connected and this brief physical life is all there is? If we believe that to be true then what practical purpose do morals serve? Are they reasonable and logical? > > Think about it. If this life is all there is then doesn’t it really make more sense to be as self serving as possible? I respectfully would say that you be-little Life. Life is a great thing,a passed on thing (in my beliefs), and is to be lived so the next generation will have a better life. as a part of a whole, we need each other and the animals, insects,plants etc. plus a clean environnment, The old adage"No man is an island" is still true today. We need others, even if we think we do not. All life has purpose. That is to live and look for the good in others. Monavis ---
**Author:** ![monavis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e0b2c6/32.png) [@monavis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/monavis)\ **Post date:** [July 8, 2005, 9:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-this-spirituality-you-earthmen-speak-of/310029/306 "2005-07-08T09:53:03Z")
> [@cosmosdan](#): > > I made no such assumption. I was just poseing a question and playing a bit of the devils advocate in presenting it. My question still stands unanswered. If this brief physical life is all there is it seems to me that self interest is the logical and reasonable way to go. > I can’t agree. We see it happening every day. Isn’t the question of health care a symbol of this? Don’t we to a large degree abandon certain people in our own country and in other countries as well. I can’t afford to pay sopmeone elses medical bills. I have a cable TV bill to worry about, not to mention my boat payment. > I was kidding. As you can see I have spiritual beliefs. > I think it’s idealistic and not a realistic representation of how people actually are. In that sense I might say that reality is a reflection of this life being all there is. > > I see the logic in a group working together. There are examples of groups working together and pooling their resources and it working out extremely well. The early LDS under Smith were a pretty good example. It sounds great in the ideal. In reality it’s hard to maintain as history shows. Sometimes we have to choose who gets the available food or medicine, me or them. Look at nation expansion. We need more land. They have it. Let’s take it. > > You’ve made a good case for the logic of cooperation. It works well when all goes smoothly and seems to be the natural extention of self interest. It serves the individual to be a part of a group. When a crisis comes you see people put to the test. At that point survival of the fittest seems logical. I would answer you thus,were it directed to me. We have learned over the many years that we better our selves by cooperating with each other. The survival of animals, ants and like beings have evolved to know this also; hence the most of the 10 commandments bear up this idea of common sense. Monavis ---
**Author:** ![monavis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e0b2c6/32.png) [@monavis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/monavis)\ **Post date:** [July 8, 2005, 10:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-this-spirituality-you-earthmen-speak-of/310029/307 "2005-07-08T10:03:09Z")
> [@Kalhoun](#): > > Not for me, it isn’t. I don’t see where the “choice” comes in. If he’s there, and he loves us…we would all know it. We wouldn’t question his existence anymore than we would question the existence of our own bodies. You may choose to _believe_ something is there, whether conventional logic and understanding disagrees or not. But I can’t _choose_ to ignore something that isn’t there in the first place. If the Judeo,Christian idea of God being everywhere then it is impossible to separte from God even if you chose to. Monavis ---
**Author:** ![Kalhoun](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/3bc359/32.png) [@Kalhoun](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kalhoun)\ **Post date:** [July 8, 2005, 1:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-this-spirituality-you-earthmen-speak-of/310029/308 "2005-07-08T13:45:38Z")
> [@monavis](#): > > If the Judeo,Christian idea of God being everywhere then it is impossible to separte from God even if you chose to. > > Monavis Which is why I don’t accept the Judeo-Christian model. It simply doesn’t make sense. The whole free will thing goes right down the crapper. The whole worship thing loses all credibility. It’s a tangled mess of contradictions any way you slice it. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [July 8, 2005, 2:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-this-spirituality-you-earthmen-speak-of/310029/309 "2005-07-08T14:43:10Z")
> [@Kalhoun](#): > > Which is why I don’t accept the Judeo-Christian model. It simply doesn’t make sense. The whole free will thing goes right down the crapper. The whole worship thing loses all credibility. It’s a tangled mess of contradictions any way you slice it. Not the way I slice it. I challenge you to point to a specific logical flaw in any of my reasoning with respect to my faith. If you can, I will renounce my faith so long as if you can’t, you will renounce your opposition to it. Take Monavis’ latest argument, for example. Were it I who had argued it, you could point to the obvious equivocation. Separation from God does not mean geophysical separation; it means moral separation. Reification of a metaphor does not constitute a sound assertion. Free will is not about freedom of action, but freedom of moral will. God’s being everywhere does not compel your acknowledgment of him anymore than air being everywhere does not compel you to breathe. ---
**Author:** ![II\_Gyan\_II](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/bbe5ce/32.png) [@II\_Gyan\_II](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/II_Gyan_II)\ **Post date:** [July 8, 2005, 3:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-this-spirituality-you-earthmen-speak-of/310029/310 "2005-07-08T15:12:45Z")
> [@Liberal](#): > > Free will is not about freedom of action, but freedom of moral will. Does exercise of moral will manifest as physical events? ---
**Author:** ![Kalhoun](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/3bc359/32.png) [@Kalhoun](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kalhoun)\ **Post date:** [July 8, 2005, 4:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-this-spirituality-you-earthmen-speak-of/310029/311 "2005-07-08T16:50:05Z")
> [@Liberal](#): > > Not the way I slice it. I challenge you to point to a specific logical flaw in any of my reasoning with respect to my faith. If you can, I will renounce my faith so long as if you can’t, you will renounce your opposition to it. > > Take Monavis’ latest argument, for example. Were it I who had argued it, you could point to the obvious equivocation. Separation from God does not mean geophysical separation; it means moral separation. Reification of a metaphor does not constitute a sound assertion. Free will is not about freedom of action, but freedom of moral will. God’s being everywhere does not compel your acknowledgment of him anymore than air being everywhere does not compel you to breathe. The logical flaw is that none of it can be proved with logic. That’s why it’s called “faith.” And that’s your perogative. And all these specifics you lay out, such as “Free will is not about freedom of action, but freedom of moral will” or “Separation from God does not mean geophysical separation; it means moral separation” are YOUR interpretation. There are plenty of people who will disagree with that. I renounce all faiths. Don’t feel like I’m picking on you. You certainly don’t need my approval to be a believer! 😉 ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [July 8, 2005, 5:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-this-spirituality-you-earthmen-speak-of/310029/312 "2005-07-08T17:34:57Z")
> [@Liberal](#): > > God’s being everywhere does not compel your acknowledgment of him anymore than air being everywhere does not compel you to breathe. Except that air isn’t everywhere, is it? If I empty my lungs and then don’t inhale again, there’s no air in my lungs and I sufficate. If air really were everywhere, no one would need to breath, because the air would already need to be where it is. I have no idea how this affects your metaphor about God. I’m just feeling nitpicky. ---
**Author:** ![lekatt](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lekatt/32/7269_2.png) [@lekatt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lekatt)\ **Post date:** [July 8, 2005, 6:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-this-spirituality-you-earthmen-speak-of/310029/313 "2005-07-08T18:32:36Z")
> [@MrDibble](#): > > All in your head? Yes, and yours also. God can be seen in anything and everything, He/She is all there is. You will understand in the future, all do. ---
**Author:** ![monavis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e0b2c6/32.png) [@monavis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/monavis)\ **Post date:** [July 8, 2005, 8:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-this-spirituality-you-earthmen-speak-of/310029/314 "2005-07-08T20:39:48Z")
> [@Kalhoun](#): > > Which is why I don’t accept the Judeo-Christian model. It simply doesn’t make sense. The whole free will thing goes right down the crapper. The whole worship thing loses all credibility. It’s a tangled mess of contradictions any way you slice it. I do not accept the Judeo-Christian concept either, but I think the word “God” means existence,(not a supreme being)we exist, so we are a part of the greater whole. One cannot separate from existance. Monavis ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [July 9, 2005, 9:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-this-spirituality-you-earthmen-speak-of/310029/315 "2005-07-09T09:24:35Z")
> [@II Gyan II](#): > > Does exercise of moral will manifest as physical events? In the sense that synapses fire when the brain has thoughts, yes. Some moral decisions are acted out with non-self objects (like other people, animals, and things.) But some are merely conceived. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [July 9, 2005, 9:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-this-spirituality-you-earthmen-speak-of/310029/316 "2005-07-09T09:30:01Z")
> [@Kalhoun](#): > > The logical flaw is that none of it can be proved with logic. That’s why it’s called “faith.” And that’s your perogative. And all these specifics you lay out, such as “Free will is not about freedom of action, but freedom of moral will” or “Separation from God does not mean geophysical separation; it means moral separation” are YOUR interpretation. There are plenty of people who will disagree with that. Disagreement or controversy does not disqualify an argument from being logical. A man who disagrees that parallel lines never intersect may establish a geometry that is non-Euclidean. > [@](#): > > I renounce all faiths. Don’t feel like I’m picking on you. You certainly don’t need my approval to be a believer! 😉 I appreciate your saying that. But some theists are deists, and while revelation is a dandy epistemology, I always demand that what God reveals to me withstand the most rigorous analytical examination. Therefore, when a man says that my belief system is a “tangled mess of contradictions any way you slice it”, I cannot help but suspect that his motives are malevolent, disingenuous, or uninformed. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [July 9, 2005, 9:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-this-spirituality-you-earthmen-speak-of/310029/317 "2005-07-09T09:32:30Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > Except that air isn’t everywhere, is it? If I empty my lungs and then don’t inhale again, there’s no air in my lungs and I sufficate. If air really were everywhere, no one would need to breath, because the air would already need to be where it is. > > I have no idea how this affects your metaphor about God. I’m just feeling nitpicky. Air can be in your lungs even if you’re suffocating. There are all sorts of maladies that can interfere with the processing of oxygen into your bloodstream. When a man nitpicks an analogy, he should be careful to pick at the pertinent parts. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [July 9, 2005, 9:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-this-spirituality-you-earthmen-speak-of/310029/318 "2005-07-09T09:34:09Z")
> [@monavis](#): > > One cannot separate from existance. Sure one can. Existence is a trivial thing. ---
**Author:** ![monavis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e0b2c6/32.png) [@monavis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/monavis)\ **Post date:** [July 9, 2005, 9:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-this-spirituality-you-earthmen-speak-of/310029/319 "2005-07-09T09:56:21Z")
> [@Liberal](#): > > Sure one can. Existence is a trivial thing. Pray tell how? You exist in human form now, and after your body decays, your atoms etc. that you are made of become part of existence again,how can you escape? Existance is all there is, think about it. Even if you say God exists, you are admitting an existence.Existence and truth are the same thing,for truth is what really is. Monavis ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [July 9, 2005, 10:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-this-spirituality-you-earthmen-speak-of/310029/320 "2005-07-09T10:21:56Z")
> [@monavis](#): > > Pray tell how? You exist in human form now, and after your body decays, your atoms etc. that you are made of become part of existence again,how can you escape? Existance is all there is, think about it. Even if you say God exists, you are admitting an existence.Existence and truth are the same thing,for truth is what really is. Your point of view is called “existentialism”. The opposing point of view is called “essentialism”. Existentialists argue that existence precedes essence, and essentialists argue that essence precedes existence. You have not established that the universe, with its atoms and what-not, is real. What is real must be objective without regard to subjectivity or conventions of thought or language. Existence is itself a convention of human thought. _Cogito ergo sum_ (I think, therefore I am) is an existential statement, relying on the logical device of modus tollens. Without rules of deduction the statement is not true, and without man’s cognition, there is no rule of deduction. God does exist, yes. (In fact, He cannot not exist). But His existence is as trivial as our own. It is His essence — goodness — that compels Him to exist. That’s because the essence of goodness is edification. Therefore, if anything at all exists, then God must exist as well. The universe will die. But the essence of God (and man created in His image) will not. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-this-spirituality-you-earthmen-speak-of/310029.md?page=15) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-this-spirituality-you-earthmen-speak-of/310029.md?page=17)