Does Spirituality really need a consistent definition? If so, why?

[Jway]

It's impossible to come up with one, consistent, definition of what spirituality is. I'm not sure why anyone would try. Maybe because they are interested in consistency, consensus or standardization. Hmmm, makes me wonder.

I observe that theology has extensive and well-documented philosophical roots. The evolution of "what is spirituality" over time shows that we have yet to find complete agreement. But what history has shown us is that theology and theosophy are an effort to expand our understanding of self and universal themes through devotion, contemplation, meditation and worship. It would seem to me that as a practice, the goal is to better the human consciousness and the human condition.

 

I'd like to thing that a picture of someone meditating peacefully in a synagogue (or really wherever), is something that just about anyone could tell me is spirituality demonstrated. Same with a picture of a priest counseling a homosexual married couple, or Copernicus doing whatever it is catholic clerics did 500 years ago.

If I showed them a picture of me vacuuming a floor, they may say that it wasn't spirituality. Though because we have historically lacked complete agreement, they may not agree with my assessment that even picture of me vacuuming the floor IS spiritual.

 

I see spirituality as obvious, and believe when most people see certain images, like the ones I've presented here in text, or similar ones, that it is evident to all. But the fact is, I'm not afraid to say, it is about this simple. We may not be in complete agreement about what spirituality is, but we do have some to lots of agreement.

 

There I said it - just as I desired to say it.

[Boerseun]

If anything is proposed to be scientific, it must be well-defined, and all parties involved must agree upon the definition. This is to that experiments can be repeated in other laboratories to verify the initial experiment. Verification through repetition is impossible if the terms cannot be agreed upon. It's impossible to repeat an experiment where the initial experiment used Hydrogen, if nobody agrees on what Hydrogen actually is.

 

Therefore, "Spirituality" is basically like pornography - you'll know it when you see it. The picture of you mowing the lawn might be enormously spiritual for you, whilst for me it would just indicate someone who didn't have tickets for the game that day and ended up mowing the lawn for lack of anything better to do. That hardly makes it usable in any scientific context.

 

So, yes - the same goes for mysticism. If you cannot even define these terms to mutually agreeable terms, then anything flowing from it, or using it as a basic element, would be ambiguous, as well.

 

If you want to introduce terms like "Spirituality" and "Mysticism" in a scientific context (being on a Science site an' all), then yes, it should be rigidly described in terms that everyone can agree to. Else its entirely worthless as an element in any possible thesis.

[Jway]

Oh oh oh

 

Can we apply that same logic to the "what is science" thread?

 

Pretty please, with sugar on top. May I quote your logic on that other thread?

 

I'd just say something like this: If you want to introduce terms like "Science" and "Scientific" in a this context (being on a Science site an' all), then yes, it should be rigidly described in terms that everyone can agree to. Else its entirely worthless as an element in any possible thesis.

 

I'm typing this on "quick reply" or else I woulda underlined "everyone" and "entirely worthless" above.

[Boerseun]

Sure - go ahead.