It certainly is about religion and not some obtuse, undefined term (“spiritualty”), you prefer to use.
It certainly is NOT about religion which was invented as the result of spiritual connection, and there is nothing obtuse or ambiguous about this spiritual connection humans have. Now watch as I completely dismantle and destroy your entire argument...
It is actually quite a simple matter to demonstrate that religions have been human constructs. Many gods have been invented to explain natural processes that were not understand. As we have seen, most of these gods (of thunder, lightning, fire, etc.), have been replaced by knowledge.
This is why your “Byproducts” claim is so clearly self-refuting. There is one factual difference that separates humans from other animals in addition to our DNA and that is sentience.
Religions are most definitely human constructs, I never said otherwise. They are the result of spiritual connection to spiritual nature, which is not a human construct. Yes indeed, as science has explained away all the 'unknowns' of ancient man, religion has needed to alter teachings and modify itself, but human spirituality remains unchanged.
Sentience is the ability to feel, perceive, or be conscious, or to experience subjectivity. There are an abundance of animals which have sentience. The one factual difference is the human attribute of spirituality.
We can dismiss your underlying demand that humanity is subservient to some “thing” you call “spirituality” which, of course, we can actually attribute to your version of a supernatural force of divinity because that approach assumes the point you are trying to prove is true. And it's not been shown to be true.
Well, it most definitely IS true that humans have practiced spirituality for as long as we find evidence of human civilization. To deny this reality is just plain factually inaccurate. I have already rejected the term "supernatural" because human spirituality is indeed, a part of nature. I don't comprehend what "divinity" means in this context, I have made no such "religious" determinations for god.
Remove humans from the equation, and you lose the more complex version of sentience (self awareness, a sense of mortality and human emotions), that we experience. Remove humans from the equation and all fully self-aware sentience concepts go away as far as we can possibly tell-- unless there are other sentient beings out there we do not know of.
Since humans are the only living things with the ability to spiritually connect, it stands to reason, if humans are not present, there would be no realization of spiritual nature. This simply doesn't mean it doesn't exist, just that other living things aren't able to spiritually connect. Again, other animals have sentience and self-awareness. What they lack, is the ability to spiritually connect.
Nonsense. Your claim that there is no difference between human brains and those of primates is indefesible. Your claim is only sufficient for those who have already decided there must be this “spirituality” thing. You believe it's okay to assume as decided, the issue of some sort of “spiritual connection” which you can’t even define.
I have defined spiritual nature several times in the thread, it's a lie to keep pretending I haven't. You have not shown me how the human brain functions physically different from other upper primates. The physiological makeup is exactly the same, the functioning and operation is identical. The difference, and the ONLY difference, is human spirituality. And I didn't "decide" this exists, the evidence shows it has existed in humans as long as there have been humans. You have also not refuted that fact.
I have no explanation for "spirits" or "spirituality" because the claim remains undemonstrated. I have no properties and characteristics for that which does not exist.
So you are rejecting the fact that humans have been practicing spirituality as long as we find evidence of man's existence? How much more of a "demonstration" do you need, besides billions of people over thousands of years, exhibiting the behavior of spirituality?
I do have a comment about personality, (which you are confusing with “spirituality” and where that comes from. The sense of self is a higher brain function and it's seen in comparably lesser degrees in lesser animals (i.e., humans are not the only creatures with a sense of "self"). This in and of itself is enough to prove that "selfhood" is a natural phenomenon of higher brain functions. Either that, or your gods have made monkeys and men with a “spirit” each, and that means humans are the especial creation of one or more gods. Language, nurturing, survival, industry, and even environmental control all can be attributed to animals lesser on the sentience strat than man, which is a great case for man being of and a part of the natural world-- no gods, “spirits” or supernaturalism needed.
Other animals have personality, have you never owned a pet? Do you understand you just reeled off a series of attributes other animals have in common with humans, to some degree, and the only thing that is not present in other animals is spirituality? I've not claimed that selfhood is exclusive to humans, or sentience, or personality. Only spirituality. Isn't it curious, we are the only creatures capable of advanced thought and achievement, and we are also the only creatures who have spiritual connection? That's not a coincidence.
Personality is a phenomenon of the brain. Remove sections of the brain and the "self" changes as well. Apparently your “spirituality” is at the mercy of a few pounds of grey jelly, because the “spirits” cannot override the impact to the brain and the change in personality that attends that impact. These “spirits” must be fairly weak.
Well, I am not here to argue God of Abraham, which is what you seem to think. It's not "MY" spirituality, I wasn't even here for most of the past 70,000 years. Yes... if we do a lobotomy on a human, they may no longer realize spiritual nature... that doesn't prove it is non-existent. Sorry!
This is a perfectly valid explanation for personality, and it doesn't require the mumbo-jumbo of gods to explain it.
Again, this is not a discussion about "mumbo jumbo" that humans created as a result of their connections to spiritual nature. You can explain personality all day long, and I can show you examples of other animals who have personality... what you can't show me, and I can't show you, is another example of a living thing, practicing spirituality. This attribute was present in man BEFORE religions, it is what sparked religion. Other upper primates share as much as 98% of our DNA, and have brains which function exactly the same as the human brain, but this hasn't caused them to create imaginary delusions of things to rationalize an irrational fear of death or fill the gaps of knowledge they lack. Nowhere else in nature do we observe this behavioral attribute, it is exclusive to humans. It's certainly not unreasonable to correlate the success of humans over all other creatures and our ability to spiritually connect.
Non-material concepts are not fully non-material. You need a brain to substantiate them. Damage or impact to the brain directly affects the development and delivery of the concepts. You are simply assuming a spiritual nature for these things, and not submitting any case to support it. I am submitting they are the effects of the brain along with neurons and chemicals within the brain, and I can demonstrate how they can be manipulated by physical impact.
You can't demonstrate any such thing, or you'd be able to cite examples where we find this behavior to some degree, in other upper primates, at least. Instead, there is absolutely no evidence of spirituality in any other species. Not a little bit, not to a lesser degree, it simply does not exist in nature, other than, in humans. Now, do humans have some chemical reaction happening in their brains that doesn't happen in chimpanzees? You've shown no evidence to support that argument.
By way of example, I can
1. end all thought by killing that brain
2. create an emotion by chemical inducement of that brain
3. limit the thought and emotion of the brain by removing sections of it.
All the poetry about feelings and “spirits” and so on -- reside only in the brain. Remove it, and away it all goes. All of it. Even belief in gods.
What the **** is this supposed to prove? Yes... if you remove someone's brain or kill them, they will no longer make a spiritual connection. But then, all you really have to do, is stubbornly insist there is no god and become a Nihilist... that works too! It just doesn't negate spiritual nature, which still exists.
Now you demonstrate the spiritual source, which you assert is the actual reason emotions exist and disassemble my case, please.
Emotions do not exist because of a spiritual source. Other animals express emotions all the time... again, have you never owned a pet? Spiritual nature exists or humans wouldn't be intrinsically tied to it for all their existence. It's not a delusional or imaginary weakness, or other upper primates would have trumped our asses out of existence long ago, since they didn't need a crutch or security blanket. Your idea actually defies Darwin.
I found it odd that only a paragraph ago you wrote:
“There is simply nothing about our brain and how it functions, that is physically different from other upper primates”
Suddenly, your argumentation has changed. You now write:
”The advancement of our species and what makes us vastly different from any other living thing,
Quite the waffle there.
There is no waffling there. Sorry you misinterpreted me. Physiologically, our brains are no different in composition or function as other upper primates. Yet, we have been able to achieve all that makes humans superior to other animals. The ONLY real defining difference, is our unique ability of spiritual connection. You've presented NO evidence of anything else.
I’m not sure what “spirituality” is. I have trust in science, medicine, the law, personal freedoms, self expression, etc., all those rational (and ultimately knowable) elements within and part of the natural world. I make no assertions about our existence other than its perceivable and it's natural. Consistently, this assertion relies on logic and reason to uphold itself. The religionist asserts that "logic and reason have a crack in them" and are not up to the task of envisioning the "reality" of the "being behind the curtain" paradigm, i.e., the supernatural realms of gods, spirits, etc.
The fact that you reject your spiritual nature, doesn't mean it is non-existent. You continue to illustrate the burr in your saddle, is RELIGION. You don't like religion or religious people, probably because you don't like feeling as if your are being judged or condemned for your immorality, I don't know your personal reasons, but that is common. Still, your personal hatred for religion doesn't negate human spirituality, which has always existed in man.
, you prefer to use. It is actually quite a simple matter to demonstrate that religions have been human constructs. Many gods have been invented to explain natural processes that were not understand. As we have seen, most of these gods (of thunder, lightning, fire, etc.), have been replaced by knowledge.
To possibilities... among them spiritual.
