There isn't anything I said in my post that either supports or attacks materialism. Behavior evolves just like physiology, whether god or blind chance is in charge. We have a good understanding how, but we haven't a clue why.
I think this is what scares "spiritual" people so much, not that there is no god, but that he simply isn't necessary to explain the physical world around us. But I think the physical world, what physicists study, is just the tip of the iceberg. There's a lot more going on, and that is what spirituality should be all about.
Secondly, I am not necessarily a materialist either. I consider myself highly spiritual. I just don't see spirituality as having anything to do with a conscious entity who is in charge and makes rules. I think the real truth is a lot more profound than that, and I'm not convinced we have anything to do with it, either.
To me, the traditional idea of a god as some kind of super high school principal, monitoring the hallways, disciplining rowdies and passing out diplomas is not spiritual at all, in fact, that kind of spirituality is just too easy to be useful, and too simple to be true.
Flame » in reply to Not every one is a materialist ER.
Re: Not every one is a materialist ER.
The whole thread (45 posts)
- A thought experiment from Peter Singer
- The Golden Rule
- Right!
- Re: Re: Re: Darwinism
- Re: Shifting gears but along the same line..
- Shifting gears but along the same line..
- Re: Re: Darwinism
- Re: Darwinism
- Darwinism
- Re: You might be making this too complicated.
- This whole thing is crap.
- You might be making this too complicated.
- Not every one is a materialist ER.
- *sigh*...lowering my head and shaking it*
- Re: By your own admission
- heh...very good Rob...and on that note...
- The difference is, you followed your biological clock.
- By your own admission
- Re: Not every one is a materialist ER.
- Wow...
- Re: Re: navel-gazing
- Re: navel-gazing
- Typical philozawifigal navel-gazing BS.
