How does Nature inform your Spirituality?

[Makalakumu]

How does Nature inform your Spirituality?

There are alot of different faith traditions out there and Nature is a common thread among them all. Whether by metaphor or by actual description, somehow, Nature is informative upon people's spirituality.

How does this occur in you?

 

[OnlyAnEgg]

Oftentimes by email. Other times, it just sidles up and whispers in Spirituality's ear.

Joking aside, nature and my spirituality are intrinsically entwined. Spirituality is a natural phenomenon; being in nature or near it (even a small part like a potted plant) enhances my spirituality by allowing me to be reminded I am a part of nature, not above or beneath it.

As I've said in other threads, I feel my spirituality is all about returning to a greater force or, as heretic has intimated, being reminded I'm already part of the greater force. Experiencing the natural world is part of that, naturally.

 

[Makalakumu]

I often describe myself as an atheist, but that is just an easy way out. The reality is that the most accurate description would be an agnostic non-theist. What does this mean, and how does this relate to nature?

First off, an agnostic non-theist is someone who is utimately unsure regarding the presence of a higher, supernatural, power, however, if forced to take a bet, they would hedge that there is not anything like this in the universe.

This belief comes from the careful observation of nature. When one strips away the careful layers of anthropromophization that humans have used to protect our social groups from the blind machinations of forces that we call nature. the observation that our lives are nothing more then the unfeeling transformation of energy emerges.

The Lion King eats Bambi and we are part of that process. There is no concept of morality that dovetails into this. Nature makes no judgements. It does not care. This is the universe in which we live, IMO.

With that being said, I must say that there is a capacity for wonder and awe in which all humans are capable. I'm not sure of its evolutionary purpose, but in my observations, it seems to occur frequently in natural settings. I find that I am more connected to the systems that created my consciousness in nature and I can understand how some would make this feeling into a Mother or Father metaphor.

 

[heretic888]

First off, define "nature".

This belief comes from the careful observation of nature. When one strips away the careful layers of anthropromophization that humans have used to protect our social groups from the blind machinations of forces that we call nature. the observation that our lives are nothing more then the unfeeling transformation of energy emerges.

Myth of the Given.

The problem with your explanation is that this "careful observation" that you are doing which "strips away the careful layers of anthropomorphization" is just as much of a social construction as that which you are rejecting.

This is why I have problems with any kind of identifiable "bottom line" or "omega point" that we can hold all of existence against, whether that be mythological theism or "scientific" materialism.

Then, of course, there's the little wrinkle that any observation is only as good as the methodology that creates it. As such, positivism is hardly the only methodology in science.

The Lion King eats Bambi and we are part of that process. There is no concept of morality that dovetails into this. Nature makes no judgements. It does not care. This is the universe in which we live, IMO.

Except that, when we look over the course of natural history in general and human history in particular, we see increasing trends for cephalization, socialization, and "morality". Social animals are bigger-brained animals and bigger-brained animals tend to flourish in most environments.

The "dog eats dog" paradigm that you are invoking applies, at best, only to the simplest of organisms. And, even then, it really exists in gradations.

Now, maybe this trend is a result of some ontological Other or Higher Power operating on existence "from the outside". Or, maybe it is just internal constraints within the natural system itself. Or, maybe it is some combination of the two. I couldn't tell you.

Laterz.

 

[Makalakumu]

First off, define "nature".

That which is observed.

Myth of the Given.

The problem with your explanation is that this "careful observation" that you are doing which "strips away the careful layers of anthropomorphization" is just as much of a social construction as that which you are rejecting.

This is why I have problems with any kind of identifiable "bottom line" or "omega point" that we can hold all of existence against, whether that be mythological theism or "scientific" materialism.

Then, of course, there's the little wrinkle that any observation is only as good as the methodology that creates it. As such, positivism is hardly the only methodology in science.

I don't buy it. There are alot of philisophical viewpoints that argue against a physical world that we can detect and interpret, but I think that each of them fail to take into account the things that we have actually identified about the universe. For instance, a physical constant is just what it is. It is not just a relativistic social construction.

Except that, when we look over the course of natural history in general and human history in particular, we see increasing trends for cephalization, socialization, and "morality". Social animals are bigger-brained animals and bigger-brained animals tend to flourish in most environments.

A cursory examination of the fossil record shows that varying degrees of cephalization have occured in the past. When environmental conditions changed to make cephalization too energetically expensive, then it disappeared. Consciousness among living things is not in any way special. It is just another adaptation.

Also, wouldn't socialization = morality?

The "dog eats dog" paradigm that you are invoking applies, at best, only to the simplest of organisms. And, even then, it really exists in gradations.

I would say that underneath the layers of complexity, the godless transformation of one energy into another exists in every living thing. This is based on physical laws and probably nothing else.

Now, maybe this trend is a result of some ontological Other or Higher Power operating on existence "from the outside". Or, maybe it is just internal constraints within the natural system itself. Or, maybe it is some combination of the two. I couldn't tell you.

There isn't any evidence of a higher power operating from the outside. The only thing that has been observed are the internal constraints of the system. I'm not even sure if one can logically say that there "is" an outside.

 

[hapki68]

Upnorth,

I always enjoy your posts cause they're so cerebral and deliciously pagan. If you ever lead a revolution, let me know and I'll send you a check.

Nature -- the observable world -- informs my view of life. I don't trust that which I can't experience with the senses or a shaman, priest, mullah or whatever has to explain to me.

I think for many people nature alone leaves too many unanswered questions or provides answers they don't want to hear. (Simba eats Bambi. You're Bambi.) Religions, on the other hand, can say whatever you want... as we know from the billions of interpretations.

Patrick

 

[heretic888]

That which is observed.

In which case, "nature" simply becomes a synonymn for phenomena in general.

I don't buy it. There are alot of philisophical viewpoints that argue against a physical world that we can detect and interpret, but I think that each of them fail to take into account the things that we have actually identified about the universe. For instance, a physical constant is just what it is. It is not just a relativistic social construction.

Social constructions are not intrinsically relativistic. You're conflating two very different ideas here, that of relativism and that of constructivism.

Unless, of course, you think guys like Jean Piaget and Lawrence Kohlberg were "relativists". . .

Also, constructivism does not hold that the physical world does not exist. Rather, it holds that we (as individuals and as societies) create constructs or schemas which allow us to perceive and interpret that world in the first place. If it wasn't for the constructions, you wouldn't even be able to know about a "physical world" to begin with.

The notion that our observations are somehow free of any type of contextualism or schema is precisely the Myth of the Given, the fantasy of positivism. This worldview implicitly states the physical world, the "real world", is basically just sitting out there in a pure, undistilled, undisturbed, unfiltered manner just waiting for us make our observations and recordings.

Positivism does not take into account, however, the very first principle of scientific method: data doesn't just happen. You actually have to do something to make an observation, you have to engage a methodology (what Thomas Kuhn called a "paradigm"). It isn't "just there" all by itself, independent of your actions.

I would suggest reading some of Jurgen Habermas's writings on the subject.

A cursory examination of the fossil record shows that varying degrees of cephalization have occured in the past. When environmental conditions changed to make cephalization too energetically expensive, then it disappeared.

In the short term, yes. In the long term, no.

Of course, that shouldn't come as any surprise. . .

Consciousness among living things is not in any way special. It is just another adaptation.

Can't disagree with you there.

Also, wouldn't socialization = morality?

Yes.

I would say that underneath the layers of complexity, the godless transformation of one energy into another exists in every living thing. This is based on physical laws and probably nothing else.

Based on, yes. Reducible to, no.

There isn't any evidence of a higher power operating from the outside. The only thing that has been observed are the internal constraints of the system. I'm not even sure if one can logically say that there "is" an outside.

Of course not, I was just playing Devil's Advocate.

Laterz.

 

[Makalakumu]

In which case, "nature" simply becomes a synonymn for phenomena in general.

That wasn't what I originally intended for this thread, but what the heck...

Social constructions are not intrinsically relativistic. You're conflating two very different ideas here, that of relativism and that of constructivism.

Unless, of course, you think guys like Jean Piaget and Lawrence Kohlberg were "relativists". . .

Also, constructivism does not hold that the physical world does not exist. Rather, it holds that we (as individuals and as societies) create constructs or schemas which allow us to perceive and interpret that world in the first place. If it wasn't for the constructions, you wouldn't even be able to know about a "physical world" to begin with.

The notion that our observations are somehow free of any type of contextualism or schema is precisely the Myth of the Given, the fantasy of positivism. This worldview implicitly states the physical world, the "real world", is basically just sitting out there in a pure, undistilled, undisturbed, unfiltered manner just waiting for us make our observations and recordings.

Positivism does not take into account, however, the very first principle of scientific method: data doesn't just happen. You actually have to do something to make an observation, you have to engage a methodology (what Thomas Kuhn called a "paradigm"). It isn't "just there" all by itself, independent of your actions.

I would suggest reading some of Jurgen Habermas's writings on the subject.

The problem I have with this line of reasoning is that it does insert a "loose" definition of reality. And I understand how it can be used to justify many viewpoints. However, there is such a thing as consensus, which is an integral part of the coming to grips with reality. With that being said, I still would say that "reality" is something that humans can "know" and it is something that we can observe and it is something that can shape our spirituality.

Based on, yes. Reducible to, no.

I disagree. I think that social constructions, ultimately, won't matter and that the universe's physical laws do "determine" everything.

 

[heretic888]

That wasn't what I originally intended for this thread, but what the heck...

Well, if that's how you define nature. . .

The problem I have with this line of reasoning is that it does insert a "loose" definition of reality. And I understand how it can be used to justify many viewpoints. However, there is such a thing as consensus, which is an integral part of the coming to grips with reality. With that being said, I still would say that "reality" is something that humans can "know" and it is something that we can observe and it is something that can shape our spirituality.

Again, I really don't think you quite understand the idea here. . .

The basic idea behind constructivism is that we know "reality" through schemas and constructs. There is no "knowing", as such, that does not take place through such filters or interpreters.

One such construct is language. If you don't learn language, then you can't fully grasp representational or symbolic thought. If you don't grasp representational thinking, then you can't move on to concrete roles and rules. If you don't grasp concrete operations like this, then you can't move on to third-person hypothesizing and "if-then" critical thinking, which is the cornerstone of science.

Now, what I just explained is a brief summary of Piagetian developmental psychology. It illustrates how we cannot know anything without such constructs or schemas but, at the same time, it shows how these schemas are themselves "constrained" and "ordered" in certain ways (specifically, in a cognitive hierarchy). Therefore, the system is not just completely "open" or "relative", which would be the hallmark of a psychosis.

Anyways, the point is that the "scientific" materialism you cling to so religiously is based upon such constructs and schemas. You can't even begin to think about something like it unless you have the schema for reflective thought in the first place. This is why "the world" looks differently at different stages of personal development. This is also why those rare cases of "wild" children that were never taught language behave, quite literally, like animals.

Again, I'm going to have to come out and say that this notion that we have somehow gotten to the "bottom line" of reality is not only a social delusion, but it is also decidedly anti-scientific. Scientific knowledge is self-correcting. It's hard to self-correct when you claim you have discovered the absolute truth of the universe, the "bottom line" or "omega point" that eveything is to be universally weighed against.

That is the difference between science and scientism. The former holds its knowledge to be propositions based on socially-based methodologies and constructs that are liable to be corrected or deconstructed in the future. The latter holds its knowledge to be the absolute truth, "reality" as it is, and anything that deviates from this vision is simply "wrong".

I disagree. I think that social constructions, ultimately, won't matter and that the universe's physical laws do "determine" everything.

Well, now we're getting into two different things entirely. . .

I don't have to even bother invoking constructivism or the Myth of the Given to point out that the physical stuff can't all be reduced down (without remainder) to a few basic components. I mean, the physical science itself rejects that approach and has done so for the better part of the 20th century.

For example, see: Reductionism and Evolution.

In this context, we're not even talking about the reduction of the subjective to the objective. We're talking about the reduction of one level of the objective to another level of the objective. Very wacky stuff.

Laterz.

 

[Makalakumu]

Anyways, the point is that the "scientific" materialism you cling to so religiously is based upon such constructs and schemas. You can't even begin to think about something like it unless you have the schema for reflective thought in the first place. This is why "the world" looks differently at different stages of personal development. This is also why those rare cases of "wild" children that were never taught language behave, quite literally, like animals.

The problem with this line of reasoning is the assumption that what "we" "think" matters at all. The universe would exist whether we were in it or not and this level of "scale" clearly trumps whatever is created by our own internal schema. The world may "look" different as we grow developmentally, but this "look" has very little influence on the universe as a whole. It "exists" regardless of the constructs our mind use to understand it.

With that being said, I do think that we can "know" what is in the universe via the scientific method. Often, our internal schema can obscure this knowledge, but it is not impossible to circumvent these short circuits. Most often, the methodology of the scientific method is used to strip away obscuring paradigms allowing us to glimpse what we "think" is really there...and that is the best we can do because "science" is a schema in and of itself. In essence, it is the final veil between us and the "truth" and I cannot see how that schema alone would obscure reality.

Again, I'm going to have to come out and say that this notion that we have somehow gotten to the "bottom line" of reality is not only a social delusion, but it is also decidedly anti-scientific. Scientific knowledge is self-correcting. It's hard to self-correct when you claim you have discovered the absolute truth of the universe, the "bottom line" or "omega point" that eveything is to be universally weighed against.

That is the difference between science and scientism. The former holds its knowledge to be propositions based on socially-based methodologies and constructs that are liable to be corrected or deconstructed in the future. The latter holds its knowledge to be the absolute truth, "reality" as it is, and anything that deviates from this vision is simply "wrong".

I wouldn't say that scientific knowledge is absolute, but it is the best that we can do.

I don't have to even bother invoking constructivism or the Myth of the Given to point out that the physical stuff can't all be reduced down (without remainder) to a few basic components.

As it stands now, I think that we can see that the physical stuff does reduce down to a few basic components. However, this is not a perfect reduction simply because we do not know everything (and are perhaps incapable of knowing everything). This is why I do not completely rule out the existance of the supernatural.

 

[elder999]

The problem with this line of reasoning is the assumption that what "we" "think" matters at all. The universe would exist whether we were in it or not and this level of "scale" clearly trumps whatever is created by our own internal schema. The world may "look" different as we grow developmentally, but this "look" has very little influence on the universe as a whole. It "exists" regardless of the constructs our mind use to understand it.

Not exactly agreeing, or disagreeing here, but-while this seems to be reasonably true, we have no real way of knowing that the universe would exist without us to observe it (assuming, of course, that we are the only observers) and quantum theory bears this out-it's completely counterintuitive, and probably not true, but there's no real way of knowing. It's demonstrably true-in quantum mechanics, mathematically-that the moon is not in the sky when no one is looking at it.


What science gives us, rather than "answers" is models for answersReasoning coinsists of taking fact "A", combining it with "B", and producing new fact "C," but what truly makes "C " emerge? Is it a product of A and B, or does it arise independently and coincidentally?The model is like a map that helps us negotiate reality, and what we are seeing in all our experimental models is not the reality, but the map. Newotnian physics, for example, is mostly wrong. Newtons "laws" are a pretty fair map for the territory we occupy and observe, and work well for everything from automotive design to riding a bicycle to the yo-yo, but at the subatomic level, and the level of astrophysics, they're mostly wrong, and supplanted by an "Einstienian" model, which is also-we're finding now- mostly wrong. So we find ourselves in a universe where parallel lines can and do intersect; matter and energy are interchangeable; reactions do happen beore the action that causes them; there are many more than four dimensions;fundamental particles seem to have no purpose or real existence beyond the mathematical formulae that describe them ,things travel faster than the speed of light;time is reversible, etc., etc.,etc.-being both a religious person (and I'll answer your question in mo' upnorth, 'casue it's a good one) and a scientist, I'll state again that it is the job of neither of them to prove, disprove or support the other.

 

[elder999]

It is part of my religious practice to perceive life, nature and Spirit. The shamanistic world-view is animistic in essence, ie. to see life, or rather spirit, is within everything. This also incorporates the invisible world and non-ordinary reality, a realm that contains the spirits of land, ancestors, animals, gods & goddesses, and other various entities. Another core aspect is that of soul flight - journeying to engage with helpers, be they animals, or other, for the purpose of returning with some form of healing etc, for those in the ordinary realm. This is not a one-sided relationship. Rather, it is an interaction of spirit - each learning and gaining insight from the other in a mutually respectful manner.
Parts of this practice include lucid dreaming and what is sometimes called the out-of-the-body experience Along with these techniques, the NDE or near-death-experience have played a significant role in shamanic practice and initiation for millenia.A journey that people who practice shamanism are often gifted with is one where they are able to deepen their understanding of and connection to the Natural world. It is a type of initiatory shamanic experience.

The shamanic focus has always included learning ways to know, observe, and learn from the natural world. Through shamanism one can learn to communicate with nature, to understand the needs of the trees or plants in your yard, and in your neighborhood

 

[Makalakumu]

http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Constants/Table/allascii.txt

This stuff seems pretty exact and pretty precise. And I believe that we could say that they are something we "know" about the universe.

 

[elder999]

http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Constants/Table/allascii.txt

This stuff seems pretty exact and pretty precise. And I believe that we could say that they are something we "know" about the universe.

THe speed of light in a vacuum has been found to may be not be quite as constant as we thought:

A University of Toronto professor believes that one of the most sacrosanct rules of 20th-century science-- that the speed of light has always been the same - is wrong. Ever since Einstein proposed his special theory of relativity in 1905, physicists have accepted as fundamental principle that the speed of light -- 300 million metres per second -- is a constant and that nothing has, or can, travel faster. John Moffat of the physics department disagrees - light once travelled much faster than it does today, he believes.



Recent theory and observations about the origins of the universe would appear to back up his belief. For instance, theories of the origin of the universe -- the "Big Bang"- suggest that very early in the universe's development, its edges were farther apart than light, moving at a constant speed, could possibly have travelled in that time. To explain this, scientists have focused on strange, unknown and as-yet-undiscovered forms of matter that produce gravity that repulses objects.
Moffat's theory - that the speed of light at the beginning of time was much faster than it is now - provides an answer to some of these cosmology problems. "It is easier for me to question Einstein's theory than it is to assume there is some kind of strange, exotic matter around me in my kitchen." His theory could also help explain astronomers' discovery last year that the universe's expansion is accelerating. Moffat's paper, co-authored with former U of T researcher Michael Clayton, appeared in a recent edition of the journal Physics Letters.

There are quite a few other supportes since 1999, when this was written.

 

[Xue Sheng]

THe speed of light in a vacuum has been found to may be not be quite as constant as we thought:
.

"Possibly" 1 down, 308 to go.

 

[elder999]

"Possibly" 1 down, 308 to go.

More discussion like this on this thread, so as not to hijack this one, which is a pretty decent topic itself.....

 

[Makalakumu]

Okay, a little more on topic...

The capacity for awe is always something that gives my general bend towards atheism a pause. I think that this is something that all humans experience and I experience it especially strongly in natural settings by myself or with a few good friends. During these moments, a feeling of freedom and bliss settles in and it truly becomes a worthwhile and joyous moment. Recently, I've been feeling this while playing with my kids. The small things, you know, like catching a turtle, or a snake, or a frog, or a bug, and watching the awe form in them. Again, the common thread is nature.

Is this a spiritual phenomenon or is it biological? Is it both, and if it is, then does the spiritual part even matter? I can think of a test for these questions. Would it be possible for someone to take some form of chemical or alter themselves biologically so that they lose the capacity for awe? I honestly don't know if I could live on if that were done to me, but I think this would show that awe is strongly rooted in our biology...our evolution.

Thus, spirituality would not be needed for humans to experience awe.

 

[elder999]

Thus, spirituality would not be needed for humans to experience awe.

Just drugs?

 

[OnlyAnEgg]

Nice tie-in to the fact that many naturally occurring psychedelics have been used, over the millennia, to bring us 'closer to God'. I remember, especially, the Castaneda books on the Yaqui Indians and their use of mind-bending alkaloids.

Interesting spin on nature influencing spirituality.

 

[heretic888]

The problem with this line of reasoning is the assumption that what "we" "think" matters at all. The universe would exist whether we were in it or not and this level of "scale" clearly trumps whatever is created by our own internal schema. The world may "look" different as we grow developmentally, but this "look" has very little influence on the universe as a whole. It "exists" regardless of the constructs our mind use to understand it.

Still clinging to the Myth of the Given, eh?

The problem with this line of reasoning is that it is a metaphysical a priori assumption. You have no more evidence that the universe would exist "without us" than you do for God's existence. Sure, it seems reasonable and self-evident to us --- but so does God's existence for a good number of people. Just because something is intuitively appealing does not mean it's true, it just means it's axiomatic.

And, no matter what you might like to believe, the notion that there is a single, objective "reality" that we can definitively weigh everything else against is a product of your own schema. Recent research in developmental cognitive psychology indicates that this schema (characterized by formal operations) is displaced by postformal schemas with further cognitive growth, which are characterized by relativistic and dialectical modes of reasoning.

Similar lines of research have also been supported by recent research into the development of metacognition (thinking about thinking), as well.

With that being said, I do think that we can "know" what is in the universe via the scientific method. Often, our internal schema can obscure this knowledge, but it is not impossible to circumvent these short circuits. Most often, the methodology of the scientific method is used to strip away obscuring paradigms allowing us to glimpse what we "think" is really there...and that is the best we can do because "science" is a schema in and of itself. In essence, it is the final veil between us and the "truth" and I cannot see how that schema alone would obscure reality.

Unfortunately, your assumptions are fundamentally flawed here.

Schemas do not "obscure" reality, they construct reality. The "reality" that you perceive and talk about would not even exist if not for the schemas and constructs which allow you to perceive and interpret it in the first place. When you talk about "reality", you are really just talking about your own observations and perceptions (both physical and intellectual) --- which are given to you by your schemas.

Furthermore, science does not "strip away" these schemas. Science is a schema. The scientific method corresponds quite nicely with the schema associated with formal-operational thinking, which is the basis for any rational adult's way of seeing the world. If it wasn't for this schema, then no such "scientific" knowledge would exist in the first place.

A more accurate statement would be that a rational "schema" (characterized by third-person hypothesizing) displaces a mythological "schema" (characterized by concrete roles/rules and group mentality) in human development (both individually and collectively). However, that does not change the fact that this rational and scientific schema is still a schema.

I wouldn't say that scientific knowledge is absolute, but it is the best that we can do.

If scientific knowledge is not absolute (which it's not), then people should really stop treating it as such.

As it stands now, I think that we can see that the physical stuff does reduce down to a few basic components. However, this is not a perfect reduction simply because we do not know everything (and are perhaps incapable of knowing everything). This is why I do not completely rule out the existance of the supernatural.

I don't even bother with speculation about "the supernatural" because, quite frankly, I find such speculation absurd.

The reason there it is not a "perfect reduction" is not because of a lack of information, it is because that's not how reality works. Reality is characterized by emergent properties, not reductionism. The components are necessary but not sufficient to create these emerging properties.

This is true whether we're talking about biology or cognitive development. While it is true that concrete operations are required to do formal operations, no combination or rearranging of concrete operations is going to result in third-person thought. Formal rationality is an emergent property. Likewise in the attempts to approximate population genetics from Mendelian genetics (as was described in the article I linked). It just don't work, because of the creative emergence of the new properties.

Laterz.