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

[BothAndNotEitherOr]

I’ve noticed a pattern, especially in online spaces like this one, where people seem to tie their sense of intellect or rationality to a total disbelief in anything spiritual. It’s like the idea of fate, intuition, synchronicity or even a loose belief in “something more” gets lumped in with being irrational or uneducated. I’m not talking about organised religion necessarily, more the subtle stuff people feel or notice but can’t always explain.

And to be honest, a lot of the responses I’ve seen on here reinforce that vibe. If you say anything even slightly beyond logic or science, there’s an instant eye-roll or a wall of statistics.

AIBU to think that some people over-identify with being hyper-logical and that rejecting anything spiritual has become a kind of intellectual performance?

I know loads. I work in a world-renowned academic institution, there are loads of really intelligent people in their fields who also believe in religion, spirituality, or even really far-out stuff like ghosts.

I have also noticed that some really intelligent people on the autism spectrum tend to be attracted to the structure and beliefs in religion. Convents and monesteries are full of them.

Just because someone is clever in one area of study doesn’t mean they are clever in others!

I'm mostly with you, but I have met some otherwise intelligent people who believe in (a) god(s)... I'm a complete and utter atheist, and am usually happy to take them to task (when I feel like it).

Belief in a religion, or even agnosticism, is nothing like believing in ghosts.

I’m not a spiritual person and don’t have faith. I have no problem with others embracing it and I don’t believe everything under the sun needs a rational explanation.

But I do believe where knowledge is used to influence policy or public rhetoric it needs to be evidence based.

I don’t think people are aggrieved about faith in principle as long as it isn’t used as an excuse to control or influence people who don’t subscribe to that faith.

I think the insistence on rationality really comes into play when people posit pseudoscience (as with vaccine skeptics) in place of rational thinking.

I don’t think thats got much to do with spirituality though. You tend not to hear people opposing vaccines on religious grounds, its more based on skewed and impartial science.

Fair point! Scientific discovery and innovation is fascinating!

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.)

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.

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”

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.

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.

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.

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 🤗

I would say that the need to believe these phenomena come from some outside force is understandable in people with little education or exposure to factual information. In those with intellectual capacity and access to learning, I find it ... weak-minded. I mean, okay, it takes all sorts. I'm as imperfect as the rest of you.

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

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.

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

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

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.

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