I view both spirituality and physicality as interpretations derived from two different perspectives applied on the experience of being.
In this context, perspectives and interpretations are not individual, but collective. For we are “taught” to understand what is experienced in a particular way; namely, that which best protects the experience of us as physical beings.
From an evolutionary point of view, it makes sense that we be conditioned to understand experience in this manner. After all, without any physical consideration, we’d cease to physically exist and would no longer be able to - or, as one of faith would say: need to - communicate our interpretations (physically).
Atheists would put it this way: they who do not take into account their physical being, will die out; leaving only others and their perspectives available to (continue to) evolve.
To many, that suggests that physicality is, if not “reality” full-stop, then, at least the most important “version of” it.
Yet, if you are of faith, you may word the whole thing differently and say that they who do not take into account their spiritual being, will remain stuck in a physical perspective, where evolution and physical survival are the only goals, but not the only needs.
Why is this a dilemma also to atheists? Because while physical survival, from a purely spiritual perspective on being, has no true relevance; what is required for physical survival (at the time) is not in harmony with what is needed for emotional well-being and, from a purely physical perspective on being, well-being still matters.
Humbly
Hermit
