“Spiritual” is another of those vague words that may mean different things, none of which are clearly defined, so it’s hard to say what is or isn’t spiritual.
-
-
Replying to @Meaningness @_FitCrit
Many branches of Buddhism have eliminated all supernatural elements, going back at least as far as the 1850s: https://vividness.live/2011/07/05/the-king-of-siam-invents-western-buddhism/ … OTOH, most Buddhists do have supernatural beliefs. A significant fraction do not. I personally have pretty much a naturalistic worldview
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Meaningness @_FitCrit
I say “pretty much” only because “supernatural” is another vague word. If you start asking hard questions about what exactly it means, it starts to disintegrate.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Meaningness
How? And what is a hard question? Maybe two requirements are that the supernatural event is unfalsifiable, and breaks a falsifiable law of physics?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @_FitCrit
Well, physics should be a theory of everything, in some sense. If we started to see “miracles,” we’d just want to incorporate them into our physics. What distinguishes “supernatural” events from ones that just aren’t explained by current physics?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Meaningness @_FitCrit
Something like “couldn’t be explained by any imaginable physics” maybe. But that makes the limits of our current imagination part of the definition, which doesn’t seem right.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Meaningness @_FitCrit
Also, current physics doesn’t actually explain *most* everyday things. We just think they’re “reducible to” physics in some sense; but no one has been able to work out exactly what that sense is.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Meaningness @_FitCrit
Here I’m not trying to make room for anything “supernatural”; I’m just pointing out that the term isn’t conceptually coherent. I don’t think there are any souls, gods, miracles, or bigfeet.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Meaningness
That doesn’t account for the other part of my criterion which is that the supernatural occurrence is itself not falsifiable. Definitely agree our current physics theories are not complete but they *are* falsifiable, so their truthiness can be tested; not so for a miracle.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @_FitCrit
David Chapman Retweeted David Chapman
Hmm… what supernatural things are in-principle unfalsifiable?https://twitter.com/Meaningness/status/981565908316573702 …
David Chapman added,
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
(the Filioque, in case you are unfamiliar with it:) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filioque
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.