[JohnPlace]

Originally Posted by Mark Lapierre

Haha if truth is so amorphous it's no surprise the debate over secular versus spiritual beliefs has been going on for so long.

Well, it depends upon what kind of truth we're talking about. Easily verifiable scientific truth is different than the more ambigious truth of morality and ethics.

If that's the case then I suspect the terms "question" and "answer" are misleading. The "question" seems more of search for a path, and the "answer" is a signpost pointing in the direction of a path. And the feeling of certainty, or its absence, will determine if the path is suitable, or not. I suppose that's a less-than-concise description of what metaphors and symbols are. (and here I use a metaphor to describe metaphors. Yes, really helpful )

People may seek the symbolic when no scientific answers exist. And I think the way you've described it is quite appropriate, whether we're dealing with the logical or the dogmatic pursuit of moral clarity.

Logic is not always scientific, after all, and can be used to justify practically any position. Same as religion.

I'm having trouble seeing how such ambiguous answers could map to sound logical arguments. But that's probably because I see a logical argument as falsifiable, which the ambiguity of personal experience is not.

Mark, I could give you a very thorough answer here involving specific stories of the Bible that map quite well to logical arguments that you'd probably agree with, but I'm reluctant to do so here, except to say that many of the stories in the great myths throughout history have resulted from logical cause and effect (in addition to the quest for the unknown which I've already mentioned).

Ha! Yes, yes it is less than generous. I'm still far from compassionate enough to be generous with people who are unsure of the morality of cheating.

Mark, I did not intend my "less than generous" remark to relate specifically to the person who does not know that cheating is wrong. I meant it to relate to your view of anyone who turns to religion for answers.

The "cheating" was just a randomly chosen moral question (and a rather obvious one at that). There are more subtle moral questions than this.

Furthermore, this picture that I may have unintentionally painted of "spiritual" people as sheep is niether accurate nor fair. In reality, I imagine that very few spiritual people have the ability to completely disengage from their reasoning skills; while I'm sure these people do exist, I have no reason to believe that they are more prevalent among the spiritual.

One need look no further than your average political debate to see someone using a "logical" argument to defend what is essentially a belief system, irrespective of spirituality or religion.

My point was not that the spiritual are sheep (just to be clear), but rather that spirituality and religion provide models that help large numbers people understand the world in certain situations.

And I do not believe the desire for these models is ever going to go away, although I suppose we could discuss it in 10,000 years to see how it all worked out.

Agreed, but I don't believe this person, and the person unsure about the morality of cheating, are the same... Or at least if they are, he never went to Sunday school and slept through all the readings and homilies.

It's getting kind of hard to follow this debate (I think we need nested includes), but I'll do my best here. Those Sunday School Lessons, readings, and homilies may have been the vehicle through which he was first introduced to the concepts of coveting and adultery. When the person becomes aware was not critical to my point -- at least, I don't think it was!

I think it's religion and spirituality's past and current satisfaction of that need which will keep it from ever going away, not the need itself. Without spirituality or religion the need would be satisfied some other way, as Michael pointed out.

We're going to have to agree to disagree on this point -- although I'm not sure the distinction is one worth arguing about, at least not for me.

I should just shut up and let people be satisfied with their methods of satisfying their needs

Well, if you truly believe that logic should supplant spirituality as a means of finding answers in EVERY CONCEIVABLE SITUATION for EVERY PERSON, carry on. It's good to believe in something.

Although I must say, the similarities between logic and dogma have never been so clear to me as they are now. And underneath the hood of all this, what we really have is human nature.