Quote:
Originally Posted by Uplift  It's easy, for me. Firstly, you don't assume that what you think, others think. Then, like I did, you just say, for me, it is...say... good to eat apples...fun to surf, best to have 8 hours sleep... or whatever.  |
I was thinking about something similar today, Uplift.
We spend a lot of time on these forums debating non-scientific (unverifiable, non-repeatable) concepts, such as LOA, Christianity, and Spirituality. And on other sites (and in the world at large), we spend time debating the ethics of the death penalty, abortion, conservatism, liberalism.
And it occurs to me now that most (perhaps not all) of these debates are useless, except to the extent that they help us define our own beliefs. (One possible exception might involve public policy, which could involve the momentum of what many choose to believe together.)
But my main point is that debates seldom lead to a greater understanding of anything except ourselves. The primary question is not, "Is there a God?", or, "Is eating meat wrong?", or "Is the Death Penalty wrong?" Rather, the questions are:
* Do I believe in God?
* Do I believe eating meat is wrong?
* Do I believe the death penalty is wrong?
In my humble opinion, those personal questions are very important. And much of what is not scientifically verifiable boils down to faith, whether we call it spirituality or not.
I suppose, if we're creative, we could choose to broaden the term spirituality to include all things that one chooses to believe which cannot be proven with science. Let's run that concept up the flagpole for a minute and see who salutes.
This definition would make all humans spiritual, since we all believe a multitude of things which science can neither prove nor validate. Is murder wrong? Is infidelity wrong? Is stealing paper clips from work wrong? Is dating your best friend's ex-wife wrong? Most people probably having an opinion about these things, but don't ask science to step in and answer it.
These questions are only answerable by the spirit, if we include within the concept of spirit all non-scientific logic. And the longer I think about it, the more that definition makes sense.
Just an idea.