To think that some people conflate being “intellectual” with rejecting anything spiritual?

Around where I am, and probably many other places, you get these champagne socialist types. Hipsters. The men are worst for what I am talking about. They're mostly white men.

They are atheists and they think anyone who isn't is a little bit stupid at least. Or not stupid so much as ignorant and uneducated. They pity how uninformed they are.

This comes across in how they interact with said people. They speak down to them, dismiss their experiences and perspectives and minimise their oppression by anyone outside of their community, so they won't see themselves as aggressors against this religious group. They see themselves as their saviours, if anything, because they want to rid the world of organised religion. But the chances of them interacting with a practicing religious woman in a way that develops a genuine friendship is slim to none. They have no respect for anyone who isn't an Athiest. They doubt they could be on their level from an intellectual standpoint.

What it really is about is ethnocentricity. They don't believe that people raised outside a Western culture can be very smart and the growing atheism in the West is correlated with how enlightened and intelligent we are compared to the rest of the world who are still bound by mythology. Thinking like this means that you can only ever see and think of others who are outside your Western Atheist culture as lesser. That will seep into how you behave towards said people.

You might not go around calling people racial slurs, but you will give less weight to the opinions and feelings of those you see as warped by their spirituality. It will influence how you interpret their behaviour and cause you to judge them more harshly than you would others.

Why the need to lay down a standard for others? Sounds like the worst aspect of organised religion

In the mathematically based sciences conjectures are made all the time. They keep that status until proven or refuted, either experimentally or mathematically.

Hitchens’ Razor seems to me basically to say that one is free not to attend to a concept if it cannot be proven real and one prefers to dismiss it. I can’t argue with him there, the Razor isn’t a terribly exciting concept IMO.

But then we must define where we drawer the line in looking for ‘proof of absence’ and how we go about obtaining such proof for something that is a made up story. To me, it is the same as looking for ‘proof of absence’ that Narnia doesn’t exist.

There is a major difference between proof of absence and the absence of proof

You may have misinterpreted that principle.
Quoting Google:

The statement "what cannot be disproven cannot be dismissed" is generally considered a logical fallacy or flawed reasoning in critical thinking and the scientific method. The prevailing philosophical principle, often known as Hitchens's Razor, asserts the opposite: "That which can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence".

Seriously??! OK, I'll ask.
Please elaborate.

The only bit that's unreasonable is yoir assertion that the intellectual atheists are hyper-logical rationalists. They still have weird unprovable assumptions about the world if you get talking to them.

A fundamental principle of science is that what cannot be disproven cannot be dismissed. It's certainly possible for a thinker to decide that on the balance of probabilities the likelihood of a real existence of a noncorporeal spiritual entity is low. It's also possible for someone with just as much intellectual prowess to weigh up the probabilities differently because there's no way to actually know, either way.

I think there is a certain tyoe of atheism that is linked to racism.

I mean, I studied philosophy a level and a lot of early religion was just a way to control poorer people. Hence why it caught on.

I went on to study a maths degree so I am definitely a more logical, unemotional person. But I do think some concepts of religion or spirituality are innate, like the concept of religion itself.

However, that’s where it all falls flat for me. I don’t think the concept of a god can be logical, nor do I think the concept of ghosts or other spiritual woo is. There’s just simply no scientific basis or evidence that I come to expect.

I don’t think “some people conflate them”, there’s a definite pattern there.

Love this post! Fellow Jewish atheist here :)

Op I think it’s important not to see everything as such black and white and continue to be open minded about things.

For me, that doesn’t mean believing in god or ghosts etc, and I think at some points yes I might judge someone who may not question these things. However, I also know 2 people who believe in god/heaven because they both lost their dads as children and need to believe they will see their dads again. It helps them cope and brings them peace.

I find it very humbling to see other views and remain flexible in my understanding.

This is a beautiful post. I think you, @BothAndNotEitherOr, are missing the meaning of spirituality or conflating it with half-baked beliefs that have consistently failed all proofs.

Looking at your definition:

• fate - If you mean pre-destiny, it's demonstrably bollocks. If you mean that certain courses of events will lead to predictable outcomes (as in "ill fated") then this isn't woo or special; it's mostly science.
• intuition is explainable neuropsychology. You can even train your intuition.
• synchronicity - Yes, coincidences happen! Are they guided by a supernatural power? No. There are whole mathematical specialisms in predicting coincidence. (Also see fate.)
• a loose belief in “something more” - this is described in the post above. The something more is Nature, art or music, feeling connected with other people or animals, amazing sex, etc. We don't need to "believe" in it because it's real. The connections are atavistic, echoing the course of our evolution 🤗

But those husbands with the alien pyramid theories? Weak-minded AND I look down on them, no apologies!

I’m not sure that “intellectual” is the right word, but if you are a rationalist or a sceptic then sure you probably do reject religious belief, superstition etc. You are going to care about empirical belief. I think a lot of people make exceptions for their religious beliefs or make it gel somehow or find comfort is ritual or the meditative power of prayer etc. I’m an atheist but I still care about my heritage and still enjoy some of the rituals of my heritage/religion.

I think you can be intelligent and still be restricted in your thinking. There are people who demand visual proof and data in order to accept something. I wonder if they accept the concept of dark matter, quantum entanglement any more readily than ghosts, for example, because it’s scientists that are saying dark matter and quantum entanglement exists but we can’t explain it rather than the general public.

That's just the God of the gaps fallacy surely ?

To quote you : " ...questioning the extraordinary complexities and wonder of life ...".

That is what scientists do. Earthquakes and volcanoes were a mystery, and were attributed to Gods. But now we know about plate tectonics, so that gap of the Gods was sealed closed.

I would say that is no different to things that go bang in the night. We used to blame ghosts, but now we know about material contraction and expansion as temperature changes, so that "gap of the ghosts" has been filled and sealed too.

I reckon there is no difference really between ghosts and religion.

It’s not closed minded to say “There is absolutely no evidence to support these things, so it’s perfectly reasonable to say they don’t exist-provide me with actual evidence and I will change my mind.” It IS closed minded to say “There is a ton of evidence to to show these things don’t exist, but I won’t accept any of that-I continue to believe in the face of the evidence”

I completely agree OP.

Although I actually think anyone who is so “certain” about there being no life after death or ghosts etc, are actually the dim ones. I’m just glad I’m not that closed minded.

The religious impulse and questioning the extraordinary complexities and wonder of life is nothing like believing that headless monks and Victorian urchins haunt old buildings.

No, not having it.

Questioning the complexities of life is a reasonable thing to do.

But concluding that a Middle Eastern teacher was murdered 2000 years ago but then came back to life as a (Holy) ghost and also as God, who he was all along, as well as also being the son of God, is very much like believing in ghosts and hauntings and spookery because it is a) implausible, b) irrational, c) lacking good evidence as to its veracity. (At least people nowadays think they actually have seen ghosts.)

You have explained nothing. You’ve simply asserted, without evidence. You’re not obliged to have a discussion on a discussion forum though, so fair enough.

I think I have explained it, more than enough. This is MN, not examination for Fellowship of All Souls. I’m not going to spend all night on this. Take it or leave it.

I’d agree that the Catholic Church and Derek Acorah have little in common, but there’s a spectrum, surely? Some people believe in spirits and believe they have seen ghosts. Some people believed that Jim Jones was their saviour.

What about witches? Are they respectable religion or Most Haunted-adjacent?

ETA You’ve also not explained why they are completely different - you’ve just re-asserted your position with some more illustration.

Because - in considerable summary - the religious impulse and questioning the extraordinary complexities and wonder of life is nothing like believing that headless monks and Victorian urchins haunt old buildings.

Terrible things have been done in the name of religion. But it’s also organised societies, inspired amazing selflessness, wonderful literature, some of the finest music ever created and breathtaking architecture, among much else. Derek Acorah, not so much.

That’s interesting. Why is it completely different?

I would say that both are beliefs with no scientific evidence, but plenty of personal testimony and group theory, to support them.

The terms I have a problem with are open and closed minded. It’s not being open minded to believe things without evidence. And it is being closed minded to refuse to accept evidence that refutes a belief you hold.