Atheism = No Spiritual Dimensions To Reality?

[smoothmoniker]

Someone who believes that there is no spiritual dimension to reality is a materialist - everything that exists can be described as purely natural, and nothing that it is outside of the physical world participates in the causal chain.

All materialists are by definition atheists, but not all atheists are materialists.

[HungLikeJesus]

Originally Posted by smoothmoniker

Someone who believes that there is no spiritual dimension to reality is a materialist - everything that exists can be described as purely natural, and nothing that it is outside of the physical world participates in the causal chain.

All materialists are by definition atheists, but not all atheists are materialists.

Now I've got that Madonna song stuck in my head. Living...

[Flint]

Originally Posted by smoothmoniker

Someone who believes that there is no spiritual dimension to reality is a materialist - everything that exists can be described as purely natural, and nothing that it is outside of the physical world participates in the causal chain.

All materialists are by definition atheists, but not all atheists are materialists.

It almost sounds like, according to what you are saying, I am a materialist. I don't even think "supernatural" should be a word--it's impossible.

But I don't consider myself an atheist. At all. Why does God have to be outside of the physical world? I think of the universal intelligence as the all-inclusive organization of the patterns of the physical universe.

And I don't discount the existance of what is percieved as a spiritual realm. It's simply a part of nature we don't understand yet; and probably aren't designed to ever understand. But that doesn't make it not exist.

I struggle with the fact that people percieve a conflict here. I can, quite easily, agree with everything believed within religion, without violating everything believed within science.

[Cicero]

I dunno. They say they aren't (materialists). But there is no proof. But I have also been an atheist.

[DanaC]

I don't believe in the supernatural. I don't believe in re-incarnation, an afterlife, or spirits...because it seems unlikely; based more on what is desirable than an explanation for what is. Were these things to exist then we would have to redraw the bounds of nature to incorporate them. I see no need to have a supernatural explanation for anything that exists.

[skysidhe]

If humanity is any indication of an inherent spiritual nature then I would say yes, I've met althiests who seem to posses a spiritual nature and some spiritualists who are kooks and some Christains who have no humanity at all.


I know that was overkill of an answer btw.

[DanaC]

Wasn't overkill. I think it demonstrates the problem of definition quite nicely.

[Ruminator]

Thanks guys.

Zengum, you are picking up exactly my line of thought.
That holding an atheistic belief doesn't necessitate an automatic disbelief in all things spiritual, ie. that if all of the physical universe came into existence without a Creator, then a spiritual realm might well have also done so.

So I'm wondering if there is any developed body of thought along this line at this point.

[sweetwater]

Perhaps it can be the form that the spiritual world(s) take, too. Rather than a human-shaped supernatural being with a name who takes an interest in human affairs, the spiritual world can be life forces that share space with the physical. I can't go for the superhuman being(s), but I'm not a-spiritual. The physical world is easier to deal with but the non-physical has its attraction, too.

[Number 2 Pencil]

Atheism does allow for spirituality, though the few flat-out atheists i have known seem to tend to the 'no supernatural soul and nothing metaphysical in this world' camp.

Buddhists, however, can be atheists yet still hold to the idea that the soul lives on in rebirth until nirvana? That I would call a spiritual dimension.

[Cicero]

Ah well, you are among the first atheists I have known that have not denied a spritual realm. Usually when I spoke to my atheist friends about it, they acted like they wanted to vomit, then argue.

So you are special. So you are our unique little atheist.

Atheists can talk all day about natural law. I've just never heard one advocate the existence of a spiritual realm. They usually chalk it up to superstition and are done with it. And by "superstition" they mean, getting a shitty look on their face.

[Pie]

Heh. Maybe someday, we can create our own spiritual realm; some sort meetingplace of the minds where the flesh is unimportant.
We shall call it --

Teh Interwebs.


Other than that smart-aleck comment, I agree completely with what jinx said:

Originally Posted by jinx

The spiritual world doesn't really interest me, I'm pretty happy just checking out the natural world. The spirituality of others doesn't offend me in any way, but like I said to Els the other night, it just seems like roll playing games to me.

[Ruminator]

"So you do believe in evolution," HJL advanced.

HLJ, yes I sure do believe in evolution. It is a readily observable process within various species; or like in the example of this threads development.

I don't even think "supernatural" should be a word--it's impossible.

Flint, I couldn't agree more.

Why does God have to be outside of the physical world?

Flint, how do you mean that?
I believe God must be "outside of the physical world" in the sense that He isn't reliant upon it for His existence. The physical universe exists within the realm of time, and God transcends time.
God created time for the physical universe to exist in.

I think of the universal intelligence as the all-inclusive organization of the patterns of the physical universe.

If I believed in a "universal intelligence" that definition would work well for a start. But I don't believe it exists.

And I don't discount the existence of what is percieved as a spiritual realm. It's simply a part of nature we don't understand yet; and probably aren't designed to ever understand. But that doesn't make it not exist. I struggle with the fact that people percieve a conflict here.

That speaks to me as well.

I can, quite easily, agree with everything believed within religion, without violating everything believed within science.

Though I don't understand how you manage that?

jinx and Pie,

The spiritual world doesn't really interest me, I'm pretty happy just checking out the natural world.

There is so much beauty and mystery in the physical natural world I totally understand how you feel.
But the mysteries of time, eternity, and the spirit realm fascinate me and stir my mind.

[ZenGum]

Sounds like Flind might be a Deist.

A theist believes in a God which is Immanent (fills the universe) and Transcendental (goes beyond the universe).

A deist believes in a God which is immanent but not transcendental. That is, there is a "God", and that God just is the sum total of the universe and everything in it, considered as a whole.
It is quite possible to break this Deity down into specific local spirits and personal spirits if you want, but this is not compulsory (and I guess could be named Animism).

[Flint]

Originally Posted by Flint

...
I can, quite easily,
agree with everything believed within religion,
without violating everything believed within science.

Originally Posted by Ruminator

...
Though I don't understand how you manage that?
...

As I said, easily. I don't shackle my thoughts into any pre-determined conclusions.

I understand that the body of religious writings represent the wisdom of thousands of years of human experience, and I know that human nature never changes--these writings are as relevant as they ever were. I know also, that the laws of physics do not change, although our understanding of them is always incomplete. Our understanding of the physical universe is an ever-changing work-in-progress.

When reading a composite of anctient writings, I consider this context. Is what is important to the aspect describing human nature necessarily directly correlated to the aspect describing the physical universe, i.e. do we have to believe the texts as literal or can we take away their true value without bundling in unnecessary baggage? Do I not have the luxury of using ALL the knowledge at my disposal in fleshing out an idea of what they were writing about?

I'm not saying that my knowledge of the universe is necessarily superior to those in the past, but that neither of us can confirm that knowledge. And, at best, we are all dealing in metaphors for something we are literally unable to understand. Therefore, I do the best I can with all the knowledge I have to form one coherent description of the universe. I recognize that all who came before me were making this same attempt; and I acknowledge their work and build upon it rather than tossing it out without consideration.

Right or wrong, what this means is that I place everything I read into a massive logic chart and calculate the probability of something's liklihood based upon how well it matches the literal or metaphorical descriptions found within other sources. I don't discriminate against a source simply because it is a religious text; however, as soon as someone starts quoting one, exclusive text as the source of all knowledge, their credibility drops to near zero almost instantly.

Originally Posted by ZenGum

Sounds like Flind might be a Deist.

From what you've described, that sounds about right. What I call God is immanent, but not transcendental.

However. That's not the whole story. I refer to God as an organizational intelligence, because physical objects which are sufficiently organized do begin to exhibit properties which appear to be transcendental to their component qualities. I do not believe that physical objects can be literally transcendental; however, to the degree that we are able to perceive certain of their qualities, they appear that way to us.

I believe that religions describe the apparent transcendental properties of the universe which, while theoretically capable of being scientifically explained, such a description is not likely (or was not likely at the time of a particular writing). In those cases, a vague metaphor is (or was) probably the best approach available. A metaphor can contain more information than can be communicated verbatim, acting as a kind of data compression. However, as the granularity of our knowledge increases, we can begin to take more literal views upon things.