In article <Apr.29.01.29.24.1993.8394@geneva.rutgers.edu> johnsd2@rpi.edu writes: >In article 4220@geneva.rutgers.edu, seanna@bnr.ca (Seanna (S.M.) Watson) writes: >[deletia- Recovery programs, etc] > >I do need you to show me that there is such a thing as >a "spiritual need"; to do that it may be necessary to show >me that *spirits* (souls, whatnot) exist; God is not >important to that as far as I can tell. > I get the feeling that we are debating at cross-purposes--that we do not see the same fundamental assumptions, and this perhaps makes my answers orthogonal to your questions.  I will try again.  Perhaps you believe that nothing exists aside from objectively observable and provable things.  In that case, I cannot show you that there is such thing as a spirit or a spiritual need--these  things do not exist in the realm of the objective, but in the realm of the subjective.  >OTOH, if you wish you can simply (but explicitly, please) >*assume* spirits exist, and then show me that they would >have needs, and that a.a. handles these needs in some way. >You can assume God exists too if that will help. I'll play along. > (By a.a., I assume you mean Alcoholics Anonymous, and not alt.atheism ;) I would not say that AA "handles" spiritual needs.  Rather I would say that AA (and other 12-step programs) help people come to terms with their needs--ie that AA is facilitating the recovery, and that as part of the recovery, they recognize their spiritual needs, and begin to rely on a "higher power" (12-step's term) to fill them instead of whatever substance abuse they had been accustomed to.  (Sorry, there is no objective proof here either--no way to take 2 identical alcoholics and try to have one recover by fulfilling spiritual needs, and one without and externally compare the difference--we are talking about the virtually infinite complexity of *people* here.)  >But I should say, if God is a necessary component >of your "spiritual needs" then I truely do not understand at >all. It sounds to me like *spirits* have needs that should be >fulfilled by God, but can be "masked" in other ways (drugs etc). >If this is the case, then you can leave out God: just describe >the problem, not the solution. > Spiritual needs could be defined as things that people need in addition to physical requirements like air, food, sleep, etc.  These are things like the need for love and acceptance, and the need for meaning in life.  If  one denies the existence of spiritual things, one would presumably call  these "emotional needs". The reason Christians call them spiritual needs  is that they have aspects that are not fulfillable except by spiritual  means--ie a person could be loved and accepted by many people, and do  many meaningful things, but still have a need for love, which can only be satisfied by the love of God.  Now the problem is that there are people who accept the existence of these needs, and people who reject them.  Since I believe in absolute truth, some of these people are right, and the others are wrong.  So here are the 2 possibilities:  1) If Christians are right, then we all have spiritual needs--ie we all need God.  Those who do not realize that they need God are  deluded--they just haven't recognized it yet.  2) If Christians are wrong, spiritual needs are an artefact of our brain chemicals.  Well-adjusted and properly-integrated personalities do not have such things.  Christians are simply using the concept of God and  spiritual needs to mask their own inadequacies.  I hate to belabour the point, but the existence of spirits and spiritual needs cannot be objectively demonstrated or proven, just like the existence of God cannot.  And yes, this means that there is a risk that all my subjective evidence is manufactured by my brain chemicals.  But on the other hand, I  could venture into solipsism and say that there is a risk that everything that I appear to objectively know is really manufactured by my brain chemicals.  I suspect this is an unsatisfactory answer to a request for evidence and demonstration of the existence of spirits and spiritual needs, but my assertion is that such things are not objectively demonstrable.  As I have said before,  I myself am on the Christian side of agnosticism, having been pushed off the  fence by subjective evidence.  (And no, I was not raised a Christian, so it  is not a case of simply accepting what I was indoctrinated with.)