I’ll start! There was a lot of absolutist rhetoric there that said things along the lines of “All Christians are terrible, horrible, no good, very bad people!” I think a little nuance is in order, no?

  • @Carnelian
    link
    English
    171 year ago

    Spirituality is an essential part of what makes us humans.

    Source?

    • MrMusAddict
      link
      English
      71 year ago

      I read that to mean “Spirituality is an essential part of [human history, and is still prevalent today in most cultures].” In other words, it’s an inseparable aspect of humanity. Just as erring is human.

      • @confluence
        link
        English
        21 year ago

        This kind of makes it sound like concerns over inner experience or universal ontology are erroneous. Ofc superstitious and fundamentalist instances of this are error, but “spirituality” does not depend on either of those.

      • @Carnelian
        link
        English
        51 year ago

        No I knew what you meant, I just would like to see where you’re getting that idea from

        Not to sound adversarial, that’s not at all my intention. But you can’t just say common human desires are a conditional requirement for humanity without strong evidence to back it up.

        I could just as easily say “Wanderlust is an essential part of what makes us human. Everyone needs to travel the world and connect with new places and cultures. It’s ‘cause of the way our brain is”. Many people want to travel, yes, but is the way I phrased that correct? Can I prove that?

        But either way, I agree with the spirit (hah) of what you’re saying, just feel like that’s a weird angle

        • @confluence
          link
          English
          31 year ago

          I’m not sure we’re on the same page yet. Please bear with me…

          Spirituality refers to concerns with the inner human experience. Dualists would say they’re concerned with the “soul/spirit” of a person, but you and I know we’re talking about emotional functions of the brain.

          My whole point is that being concerned with inner experience is quite natural.

          Naturalistic peeps like you and me would obviously prefer science-backed approaches to this (e.g. certain breathing exercises/meditation/mindfulness/productivity/self-improvement/education), but many people prefer superstition and fundamentalism… pursuing tradition-backed approaches.

          The ignorance lies in the approach, not the concern.

          Calling people stupid or ignorant for mere inner experience pursuits just isn’t helpful, because inner experience pursuits… the design is very human 😂

          That’s not to say all people are or should be concerned about their experiences. It’s just not dumb for people to be concerned about it.

          • @Carnelian
            link
            English
            2
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            Yeah like I said I know what you’re saying. I think it was just phrased weirdly. Your third and also your final paragraph better represent how I (not that I’m anyone important) would have liked to have seen the idea communicated in the first place

            Edit: also still seriously curious on a source for the neuroscience you’re referring to

            • @confluence
              link
              English
              21 year ago

              To provide you a source I guess I’ll need to know the parameters of your question. There’s a lot that goes into subjective feelings of connection, concerns with inner experience, recognizing our place in larger systems, etc.

              • @Carnelian
                link
                English
                21 year ago

                To be honest, I think if I try to continue this conversation I’m going to become unacceptably snarky. So I’m gonna dip. I appreciate your perspective, please enjoy your weekend!