Your take on "spirituality"

[widdershins]

"Science is not only compatible with spirituality; it is a profound source of spirituality. When we recognize our place in an immensity of light?years and in the passage of ages, when we grasp the intricacy, beauty, and subtlety of life, then that soaring feeling, that sense of elation and humility combined, is surely spiritual. So are our emotions in the presence of great art or music or literature, or acts of exemplary selfless courage such as those of Mohandas Gandhi or Martin Luther King, Jr. The notion that science and spirituality are somehow mutually exclusive does a disservice to both."

Carl Sagan.



Next!

"Argument from authority" != "end of discussion"

We've already determined that spirituality, by its strict definition, is, in fact, woo.  Perhaps Carl was using a bastardized definition, as some people do, perhaps he had some propensity toward woo.  I don't know.  It does sound, however, like he was talking about a "sense of awe" in that quote, which is not "spiritual" by the definition of the word, but may be considered so by the much looser definition which some people seem to use.  Whatever the case, Sagan was either wrong (gasp!) because he was using an incorrect definition or he held dear some form of woo (gasp again!).  Or, perhaps, he just liked to say things which sounded really cool and deep.

I admire Carl Sagan, and have read almost all his books. I'm sure he doesn't believe in woo.
You're right that it would be a fallacy of authority IF I literally said that other opinions (like yours) were wrong and justify Sagan as the only right one.
Maybe you should read more about Sagan before making conjectures more fallacious than you accused me.

You'll notice the "Next!" at the end of your post, suggesting that you've just ended the discussion by definitively resolving the issue, which you had not.  If you meant something else then perhaps you should formulate proper sentences rather than rely on one-word sentences which could be misconstrued.  In any case I committed no logical fallacy.  The worst thing I did was misunderstand your poorly constructed and incomplete ending "sentence".

[Bibliofagus]

We used to use better words for what is nowadays descibed as 'spiritual'.
Like the sublime http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sublime_(philosophy)

[Mathias]

You'll notice the "Next!" at the end of your post, suggesting that you've just ended the discussion by definitively resolving the issue, which you had not.  If you meant something else then perhaps you should formulate proper sentences rather than rely on one-word sentences which could be misconstrued.  In any case I committed no logical fallacy.  The worst thing I did was misunderstand your poorly constructed and incomplete ending "sentence".

I don't know why so much ado about nothing, but I thought (and of course I can make mistakes) that the Sagan's phrase showed everything I think about the issue. Maybe for a cultural-linguistic problem has sounded offensive and / or misleading, but still keep the poetry of Sagan on the subject.
Your various assertions about why Sagan wrote the sentence that I "ctrl v" in my post just shows you don't know  almost nothing about Sagan, but anything was fallacious. Sorry, mea culpa!!

[widdershins]

You'll notice the "Next!" at the end of your post, suggesting that you've just ended the discussion by definitively resolving the issue, which you had not.  If you meant something else then perhaps you should formulate proper sentences rather than rely on one-word sentences which could be misconstrued.  In any case I committed no logical fallacy.  The worst thing I did was misunderstand your poorly constructed and incomplete ending "sentence".

I don't know why so much ado about nothing, but I thought (and of course I can make mistakes) that the Sagan's phrase showed everything I think about the issue. Maybe for a cultural-linguistic problem has sounded offensive and / or misleading, but still keep the poetry of Sagan on the subject.
Your various assertions about why Sagan wrote the sentence that I "ctrl v" in my post just shows you don't know  almost nothing about Sagan, but anything was fallacious. Sorry, mea culpa!!

Okay, this is just getting silly.  You just completely misrepresented everything I said here.  I never claimed to have a problem with the quote and I made no assertions whatsoever about anything.  Assertions don't start with "Perhaps" and end with "I don't know".  As I already clearly explained my problem was with your ending word, "Next!", which I took as meaning that with this quote from a well known and popular atheist you had definitively settled the issue and we could move on to the next issue.  If that was in fact the case then it was in fact an argument to authority.  If it was not the case then why don't you quit making untrue claims about what I have said and just tell me what the hell you meant and the entire issue would be cleared up.  If you did make an argument from authority than admit to it.  You made a mistake.  Big deal.  Either way if you're hoping to "win" an argument here, I really don't see that happening as my point was well laid out and very valid and no amount of misrepresentation of what I was saying is going to change that.

[Mathias]

widdershins,

It wasn't just about the "next" you mentioned. Your words:

Whatever the case, Sagan was wrong Either (gasp!) because he was using an incorrect definition or he held dear some form of woo (gasp again!). or, Perhaps, he just liked to say things Which Sounded really cool and deep.

I don't think I am wrong, much less Sagan, and I'm not trying to "win" an argument because I have already made my point of view very clear and respect of those who consider the word inappropriate for any connotation that isn't religious.
And of course you still have not read the book that mentions Sagan's quote - The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark - because otherwise you know why he wrote that.

In short, I accept the definition of Sagan, a poetic concept of spirituality, a word whose root goes beyond the religious sense. Just as the phrase "we are a way for the universe to know itself" doesn't literally mean what it says.

[widdershins]

widdershins,

It wasn't just about the "next" you mentioned. Your words:

Whatever the case, Sagan was wrong Either (gasp!) because he was using an incorrect definition or he held dear some form of woo (gasp again!). or, Perhaps, he just liked to say things Which Sounded really cool and deep.

I don't think I am wrong, much less Sagan, and I'm not trying to "win" an argument because I have already made my point of view very clear and respect of those who consider the word inappropriate for any connotation that isn't religious.
And of course you still have not read the book that mentions Sagan's quote - The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark - because otherwise you know why he wrote that.

In short, I accept the definition of Sagan, a poetic concept of spirituality, a word whose root goes beyond the religious sense. Just as the phrase "we are a way for the universe to know itself" doesn't literally mean what it says.

When I want a "definition", I go to a dictionary.  Please explain what the "definition" of spirituality is that Sagan gave.  The quote you copied had him using the word, not "defining" it.  Popular and beloved people simply don't get to rewrite the definitions of words.  So, again, either Sagan was using the word incorrectly or he believed in woo.  Personally I would assume he was using the word incorrectly in the "common sense", if you will.

But all of that is beside the point as you are simply playing semantics here to avoid addressing the point of your logical fallacy.

[Thumpalumpacus]

"Spirituality" is really nothing more than confusing our electrochemical reaction in the brain which stimulates the "pleasure" reaction in our brains. It is basically mistaking our "sense of awe" for magic.

Nonsense.  Speak for yourself.  I'll speak for myself, thankyouverymuch.  I'm not engaged in magical thinking, at all.  Everything I wrote that encourages in me the feeling that I call "spirituality" is perfectly natural, and confirmed by science.  

It is a bullshit word and has no basis in biological reality. It is simply credulity in the form of woo.

Again, a crock of horseshit. You don't own the word or its definition.  If you don't understand what others mean, that's your business.  But that doesn't mean that the others are engaged in magical thinking.  That just means that you are incomprehending.  Just because you yourself don't feel it does not mean that the feelings of others are insincere.

So when someone says they are spiritual, they mean that they think they are in touch with or experience things deeper, better than you do. It makes them feel special. It doesn't even matter what the actual thing is. What matters to them is that they feel special because they are self-centered cunts.

You want to act as if you're smart when you make bald pronouncements about people you don't know.  How are you any different than those you'd deign to call "cunts", putting on airs of superiority?

So yeah, blow me.  

We used to use better words for what is nowadays descibed as 'spiritual'.
Like the sublime http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sublime_(philosophy)

Now this is a great point.

[Sleeper]

This seems like another "let's build a grid to catch a butterfly" situation. Of course none of you need permission from anyone to use whatever terms you wish, but we can question why you would use them.

I don't use the term for the same reason I don't call a morally upstanding person "godly," or a large creature in a lake "Loch Ness Monsteral." I don't believe in gods, the Loch Ness Monster, or spirits. Use the term all you wish, but be prepared to be misunderstood - perhaps willfully so.

[_Xenu_]

Its a weasel word that can mean almost anything.

[SGOS]

I am astonished and elevated by the craftsmanship of a Rembrandt painting like the Night Watch, and totally "meh" at a Jackson Pollock.

Never got off on Rembrandt.  I've even been to a special Rembrandt exhibit at the Getty Art Museum in California.  Nothing happened to me except I can say I've been close enough to a Rembrandt to touch it with my finger (I didn't touch it of course.  I'm not that kind of guy).  But I've seen several Jackson Pollocks at the Art Institute in Chicago.  They turn me on big time.  I like the way the colors mix in random patterns.  I can't explain why this appeals to me so much.  I don't think this can be accounted for by spirituality, though.  But I think the guy was a genius.  Or at least, he just had one inspiration in his life that could be called a stroke of genius.

[Thumpalumpacus]

This seems like another "let's build a grid to catch a butterfly" situation. Of course none of you need permission from anyone to use whatever terms you wish, but we can question why you would use them.

I don't use the term for the same reason I don't call a morally upstanding person "godly," or a large creature in a lake "Loch Ness Monsteral." I don't believe in gods, the Loch Ness Monster, or spirits. Use the term all you wish, but be prepared to be misunderstood - perhaps willfully so.

Ah, but whose will is it at work in the misunderstanding?  

Communication is a two way street.  Standing on pedantry isn't very conducive to it, nor is calling someone a "cunt" for using the term.  I know that wasn't you, but that sort of thing -- along with the imputation of motives -- is certainly not conducive to understanding.

[Sleeper]

This seems like another "let's build a grid to catch a butterfly" situation. Of course none of you need permission from anyone to use whatever terms you wish, but we can question why you would use them.

I don't use the term for the same reason I don't call a morally upstanding person "godly," or a large creature in a lake "Loch Ness Monsteral." I don't believe in gods, the Loch Ness Monster, or spirits. Use the term all you wish, but be prepared to be misunderstood - perhaps willfully so.

Ah, but whose will is it at work in the misunderstanding?  

Communication is a two way street.

Not according to the people who are just waiting to misunderstand you. I have to agree with Hitchens on this. There is something to be said about the numinous, the phenomenal or the transcendent. But there is nothing supernatural about these things and, personally, I choose not to brand it as such.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Not according to the people who are just waiting to misunderstand you. I have to agree with Hitchens on this. There is something to be said about the numinous, the phenomenal or the transcendent. But there is nothing supernatural about these things and, personally, I choose not to brand it as such.

... which is why I described it as I did.  The terms you chose are certainly effective to someone with a good command of the language.  Unfortunately, that is not often the case.

I personally prefer listening as well as talking, myself.  And when someone uses a word like "spiritual", I prefer to listen to their definition before deciding that they're being disingenuous or cuntish.

[GurrenLagann]

There's no denying that people have these experiences they deem "spiritual". But just as when I was a Christian, I don't really get the point of the term and it seems a bit useless. Sublime or Numinous are better terms I believe.

[Sleeper]

The terms you chose are certainly effective to someone with a good command of the language.  Unfortunately, that is not often the case.

I personally prefer listening as well as talking, myself.  And when someone uses a word like "spiritual", I prefer to listen to their definition before deciding that they're being disingenuous or cuntish.

I understand and appreciate that. It's all a matter of preference which is why I used terms like "I choose not to..." and "use whatever terms you wish..." I never really agreed with the "cunt" comments, though it is true for some people. I think the_antithesis might have been doing what many of you were doing in my atheist celebrities thread - making a negative generalization that probably does not apply to most here making the positive assertion. If I'm wrong, I'll happily be corrected.