Can Atheists & Agnostics be objective about spirituality

[Bro Dave]

Atheists & Agnostics seem to have an unwriten dogma about anything spiritual. Most,(but not all) seem to have a negative emotional reaction to anything not physically measureable. Are they suffering an over reaction to having commited to an idealogy that later embarassed them, leaving them incapable of objectivity in the arena of spirituality?

Bro Dave

(I just realized I accidently put this in the wrong area... I think it belongs under philosophy, if so feel free to move it)

[QED]

I’m not sure how a diatribe against our very fallible senses applies here, but the experiences such as out-of-body, or interactions with non physical reality is rarely experienced via the physical senses.

That is obviously flawed to me. To have an "Experience" involves one or more physical senses. I know what you're talking about, feelings, impressions, sensations can often seem to be manifestations of mind alone. But I would argue that the scene for these impressions is always set by our sensory input and as a whole this system is capable of delivering a reality every bit as 'real' as our regular everyday experience.

Whereas you believe, that unlike all other animals, we've had some sort of magical dust sprinkled on us at birth or thereabouts -- I see everything form the perspective of a couple of million years of hominid evolution in which the main thrust was the production of a brain with a greatly enhanced power of imagination. Imagination has been demonstrated in other animals in a wide range of cleverly devised tests, but the extent of this property has been shown to be far more limited than our own.

In our case, I think our imaginations have been the driving force behind our rise to dominance over the animal kingdom. Imagining what happens if you drive a herd of bison over a cliff would gives rise to a tactic which confers far greater power than tooth and muscle alone.

Ironically, this same heightened power of imagination has, I believe, led us to consider the notion of an ultimate 'being' by projecting our own attributes into an imaginary realm of perfection. Aided and abetted by the perceptive glitches I was discussing earlier, it seems obvious to me that we end up where we are. This is me being objective about our evolution, behavior and motives. Just because my analysis denies a spiritual connection to any external agency does not mean that I am not being objective about said spirituality. It just means that I disagree with your analysis.

[McCulloch]

Actually, I don’t see us primarily as animals. I see us as spirit, temporarily housed in a material vehicle. (Ya gotta start somewhere…)

That is a very nice opinion. But since the topic of this debate has to do with objectivity (your choice of words), could you add something objective to the topic? Unless I missed it, you have yet to define what you mean by being objective in the spiritual realm.

Objectivity in any realm comes down to acceptance by the individual.

Emphasis mine
This discussion has been hampered by a difference of definition regarding the word objectivity.

• (judgment based on observable phenomena and uninfluenced by emotions or personal prejudices)
• A quality in writing characterized by the absence of the author's opinion or feeling about the subject matter.
• This describes the degree to which the diagnosis is independent of the investigator
• degree to which information is based on observable phenomena and presented factually with an absence of bias
• 
  An objective source relies on facts rather than opinions or beliefs.
• An unprejudiced or open orientation to information about the nature of phenomena being studied.

Your definition seems to be at odds with any that I can find. I will not try to argue that subjective truths do not exist, but you have argued that atheists and agnostics cannot be objective in the spiritual realm and then you have defined the word objective to mean subjective.

[Bro Dave]

I will not try to argue that subjective truths do not exist, but you have argued that atheists and agnostics cannot be objective in the spiritual realm and then you have defined the word objective to mean subjective.

Have you ever had what you understand to be a spiritual, ie extra physical experience, especially a "religious" experience? I would guess that if you have, you have not accepted it in those terms, and therefore have no way of judging objectively on the subject of religious or spiritual validities.

Bro Dave

[Bro Dave]

I will not try to argue that subjective truths do not exist, but you have argued that atheists and agnostics cannot be objective in the spiritual realm and then you have defined the word objective to mean subjective.

Have you ever had what you understand to be a spiritual, ie extra physical experience, especially a "religious" experience? I would guess that if you have, you have not accepted it in those terms, and therefore have no way of judging objectively on the subject of religious or spiritual validities.

Bro Dave

[Curious]

Have you ever had what you understand to be a spiritual, ie extra physical experience, especially a "religious" experience? I would guess that if you have, you have not accepted it in those terms, and therefore have no way of judging objectively on the subject of religious or spiritual validities.

Bro Dave

This is subjective though Dave. While you may attempt to judge the experience objectively, this is not possible, due to the subjective nature of the experience. This is the main problem when trying to explain the nature of the mystical experience with the unbeliever,along with the limitations of language, which is wholly inadequate to describe the mystical experience.

[QED]

Have you ever had what you understand to be a spiritual, ie extra physical experience, especially a "religious" experience? I would guess that if you have, you have not accepted it in those terms, and therefore have no way of judging objectively on the subject of religious or spiritual validities.

Bro Dave

This is subjective though Dave. While you may attempt to judge the experience objectively, this is not possible, due to the subjective nature of the experience. This is the main problem when trying to explain the nature of the mystical experience with the unbeliever,along with the limitations of language, which is wholly inadequate to describe the mystical experience.

Very well put Curious. We are talking about human cognition here. You might think that a Monk who devotes his life to spirituality is better placed to receive the 'religious validities' that you speak of. But ordinary people in the working community can have equal opportunity to be just as contemplative.

I think that there is an undoubted 'feel' to the universe. Sitting on a beach, looking out to sea at sunset, one can't help but take on a frame of mind that transcends the mere beauty of the view. But then how is this feeling processed? There are minds that have been exposed to, and have rejected as myth, the stories passed on from age to age that attempt to explain the wonder of it all. So the tingly feeling is recognized instead as a message form the brain that -- lo, we stand before something mighty. A feeling that we also get to some degree when we find ourselves before any other wonder, be it natural or man-made.

The need for this reaction is obvious. Any creature that does not recognize something as awesome is likely either to get crushed by it, or get crushed by someone who spent a lot of time and money making it. I'm sure you'll be most appreciative of the way I can reduce this down to natural selection, but there it is. Every last piece of us can be seen as a product of evolution by some form of selection, and every last piece of our behavior is similarly directed

[Bro Dave]

Have you ever had what you understand to be a spiritual, ie extra physical experience, especially a "religious" experience? I would guess that if you have, you have not accepted it in those terms, and therefore have no way of judging objectively on the subject of religious or spiritual validities.

Bro Dave

This is subjective though Dave. While you may attempt to judge the experience objectively, this is not possible, due to the subjective nature of the experience. This is the main problem when trying to explain the nature of the mystical experience with the unbeliever,along with the limitations of language, which is wholly inadequate to describe the mystical experience.

And what is the measure for absolute objectivity? Is there anything that is automatically excluded? If so, on what basis? How can one know what he/she does not yet know? Do you accept string theory? What about branes? Does it bother you that matter seems to vanish into and out of existance? If you had a conversation with a being from another universe, or even another dimension, would you expect them to agree with your "objective" views?
For you my statement is subjective. For me it is not. We each have the final say as to what we accept as true, and so, you are within your right to make that judgement. As I am equally welcome to evaluate all that I experience and therefore judge to be objective reality.
We all are forced to have boundries for what we accept as real. I just have set my boundries wider.

Bro Dave

[QED]

We all are forced to have boundries for what we accept as real. I just have set my boundries wider.

Who was it that said "Let's be open minded, but not so open minded that our brains fall out"? No insult meant Bro Dave, but I think it's fairly safe to say that all humans experience pretty much the same gamut of sensations and stimuli. We all receive and make sense of these signals in our brains. This is why I mentioned the Old Hag Syndrome. I was a little disappointed that you didn't have any comment to make on it -- as the chances are that you've experienced it yourself (Sleep Paralysis is very common).

I certainly have experienced it and can report that it is a real eye-opener (sic) and it has played a major role in helping me understand the fallibility of our cognitive processes. However, I can also see why you might want to steer clear of this area altogether because there is an awful lot of explanatory power for the paranormal residing in the vagaries of the fidelity of our sensory and cognitive processes. Others have come to the same conclusion after being under the influence of mind altering drugs. The chemical compounds have no effect on the objects of perception, but merely interfere with the perception process.

So the extraordinary that seems very real is often not. Especially when the experience is a purely personal one.

[McCulloch]

For you my statement is subjective. For me it is not. We each have the final say as to what we accept as true, and so, you are within your right to make that judgement. As I am equally welcome to evaluate all that I experience and therefore judge to be objective reality.
We all are forced to have boundries for what we accept as real. I just have set my boundries wider.

Bro Dave

Dave, as soon as you start using "for you" and "for me" you are getting by definition subjective. Similarly, what you judge to be objective reality is, by definition, subjective. Now, one can, and some have, argued that there is no objective reality. Or perhaps there are degrees of objectivity. Either way, you have not really provided any meaningful sense of what you mean by objective spirituality. I have provided a few definitions of objectivity, but I am still at a loss as to how to apply them to spiritual phenomena. Since you were the one to first apply the idea of objectivity to spiritual things, could you please, using the normal English meanings of the words, tell us what you mean?

[Bro Dave]

We all are forced to have boundries for what we accept as real. I just have set my boundries wider.

Who was it that said "Let's be open minded, but not so open minded that our brains fall out"? No insult meant Bro Dave, but I think it's fairly safe to say that all humans experience pretty much the same gamut of sensations and stimuli.

So, I guess we all experience the same sensations for taste and smell as well? Clearly, even for our obvious physical senses, the interpretations of our brains is completely individual. As is our senses of touch; some can literally see with their skin! (I mean they can read print!) And what of hearing? Some can hear well beyond the range of others. Even what we see, seems open to who the individual is, and their limitations. Have you ever watched a dog get freaky, and appear to track some unseen presence?

We all receive and make sense of these signals in our brains. This is why I mentioned the Old Hag Syndrome. I was a little disappointed that you didn't have any comment to make on it -- as the chances are that you've experienced it yourself (Sleep Paralysis is very common).

This reminds me of the crop circle arguments. Just because a couple of jerks admitted to using a stomping board to create very simple designs, hardly means that ALL crop circles have to have been so created. Disbeliever get every bit as desperate in justifying their disbelief, as do the believers in justifying their belief.
What I’m saying, is that just because the phenomenon of sleep paralysis exists, it hardly explains away all “paranormal” experiences. And anyway, paranormal is only “outside-of-normal” for those who “normally” are unable to have those experiences.
.

I certainly have experienced it and can report that it is a real eye-opener (sic) and it has played a major role in helping me understand the fallibility of our cognitive processes.

And having set up your stawman, you proceed to go from the particular to the general case.

However, I can also see why you might want to steer clear of this area altogether because there is an awful lot of explanatory power for the paranormal residing in the vagaries of the fidelity of our sensory and cognitive processes. Others have come to the same conclusion after being under the influence of mind altering drugs. The chemical compounds have no effect on the objects of perception, but merely interfere with the perception process.

Sheesh! Are we now to conclude the brain is so unreliable as never to be trusted? Or only that we should not trust it where things spiritual are concerned?

Bro Dave