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?

Spiritual explanations for things are a nice story for the not-very-bright, to help them understand complex issues with their childlike minds.

Drop a steel weight on your foot try saying that both you and the weight are both not .

We are, and the universe is. We can measure things, and other people independently measure the same, and get the same result.

Or are you talking about solipsism ? That thing about the whole universe existing only in your own mind ? If you are, then I am not replying to you on this forum. It's all in your mind. And if you disagree with me, then you are disagreeing with yourself ?

Makes my head spin so it does :-)

I am not a scientist but I am on board with this view. Open to hear and learn about new discoveries but sceptic until they are proven in on way or another.

@BothAndNotEitherOr When you talk about intuition it's not really spiritual; intuition can be scientifically explained. It's part of innate knowledge, past experiences and capacity of decoding environment and people.

I don’t equate intellectual ability with rejecting spirituality, I think.

I do flinch when I hear someone say ‘I’m not into organised religion but I am quite spiritual’ because it sounds like excuses not to be bothered with the effort of joining a community, and I must say that I do then expect some nonsense about crystals or angels to be forthcoming. I also flinch at people who think wearing a T-shirt with a Dawkins quote on it makes them superior. I agree that the ‘big atheists’ aren’t necessarily that impressive on paper.

I’ve known some extremely intelligent religious people and have had periods of attending both church and synagogue. I also would say the kindest most generous people I have known have been atheists - my mother was simply a better person than my dad, she was a lifelong atheist, he was a Christian. But then, Christ came to save the sinners so nobody should expect a nice cosy community in religion really, there should be plenty of fuck-ups in there.

However, I’m as stony an atheist as it is possible to be now. And that’s because of my experiences. I think religious practice is generally good for me and others, but faith makes no sense to me in any factual way. I haven’t encountered any theology of serious mental illness that can convince me - tbh most religions seem to ignore it. Ironically the Biblical account of possession by demons looks quite accurate from the outside. But since incredible cruelty has resulted from that formulation, I reject that as well.

I suppose I do find it difficult when religion is dressed up as what the good people do, and that may result in unpleasant attitudes from me.

You’ve defined religion as ‘a made up story’ whereas I see no need to define a standard for others. So you are conflating absence of proof with proof of absence.

In the scientific realm we have well defined standards so I am not sure what you mean?

This is so brilliantly funny.
You do know that in the west, scientific endeavour was deliberately and artificially split off from religion precisely so that science could be explored without scientists being persecuted? Around the 16th century, enabling the Enlightenment? So you are so right with your first sentence.
Science has not wiped the floor at all re theories about the creation of earth, and even Darwin’s theories of evolution (wondering if this is what you’re basing your idea of the creation of man in?) is not the only theory and others based on cooperation rather than survival of the fittest (and Dawkin’s selfish gene theory) are being considered.
All of the scientists I know are fully aware that science doesn’t have all of the answers. Science offers a method for reducing uncertainties and creating predictions. It gives the best descriptions so far for phenomena, but it is not a fixed set of truths.
Funnily enough, for some of the religious people I know, religion - Christianity at least - is seen as a best set of descriptions too, since God is unknowable (from the bible). But they believe in the tenets of Christianity - service to others, self-sacrifice, and the ambition to bring heaven - in terms of harmony - to earth, and an unwillingness to judge others.
Personally I find this incredibly inspiring, although I remain agnostic (atheism is a position of faith).

My point was that at some point in some scenarios, ‘absence of proof’ should be turned into ‘proof of absence’ and it’s about where we decide to draw the line and decide that actually, something doesn’t exist.

Yes i’ve stated earlier in the thread that i am an atheist, therefore i do believe god is a made up story. Absolutely. But i think it’s also a good example as to understand where we must draw the line into deciding it is a case of ‘proof of absence’ and not ‘absence of poof’

There’s a great book by Orson Scott Card about exactly this. It’s in the Ender’s Game series.

Some of the things referred to on this thread as obviously, definitely not true are being explored in Physics, though. At a level I certainly can’t understand or explain, but I can follow radio programmes about it, though 😁

We don’t quite know how the universe, or reality works. We don’t understand time. Multiple dimensions and quantum stuff leaves a lot of scope for the world to be not quite as we experience it.

There is so much more to life than that which is measured and explained by science.

I am happy to use the framework of the religion of my culture to describe it, knowing that doesn’t mean the languages of other cultures religions are wrong. It’s possible that science will one day resolve the questions faith explores, but it’s also possible it won’t.

Thanks, I am aware of this. My PhD is in a very maths-y STEM field.

Obviously many religious people believe this of their religion. You do not share their axioms. Neither your axioms nor theirs are acceptable to those on the other side.

I cannot see that there is anything inherently superior about either atheism or religion. Either can be used for good or for harm. In recent years, at least in my circles, it’s (a subset of) atheists who have been more smug. This thread is validating that observation.

People like Gregor Mendel, Francis Collins, Nikolai Copernicus and Isaac Newton? Nit very bright…..

I think you’re granting undue dignity to superstition, gullibility and credulousness.

The kind of thing I see most often mocked on here is absolute nonsense like ‘psychics’ who told someone ‘unbelievably specific stuff they couldn’t have known’ or ‘my toddler waved at something invisible and the lights flickered, therefore my house is haunted’.

The poster’s lack of basic critical intelligence is evident, as is their extreme reluctance to admit that there’s a perfectly rational reason for their ‘paranormal’ occurrence. There was a thread ages back where a poster claimed to have seen a group of ghost horses and soldiers on Oxford St, and remained absolutely adamant that what she’d seen were ghosts even after someone pointed out that the Household Cavalry go that way returning from dawn exercise in Hyde Park.

Or the way the Savernake Forest story seems to be regarded as true by some posters purely because someone posted it on here and it’s been reposted often. Ditto the angry man in the nightclub. They’re both effective stories, but that in no way makes them true.

I mean, it’s not that I don’t sympathise with someone who is bereaved and longing for a sign someone continues to exist in some form. We’ve all been there.

But ‘smug’ is neither here nor there in this discussion. ‘Smug’ has no bearing on the intellectual validity of a position, or someone’s ability to marshal evidence, probability etc.

I mean the last few pope's have been pretty educated degree-wise all having multiple degrees including PhDs so I don't think that works as a sweeping statement..

Sorry if someone has brought this up already, but Ian McGilchrist has written several books on how the West over- prioritise the intellectual side of the brain, in relation the the intuitive side. He says that, as a society, we need to pay more attention to things we can't measure, such as spirituality.
I haven't phrased it very well, but think he's right.

Yes, but their PhDs are in things like apologetics!

Or, of course, he could be wrong. It’s not much of a reasoned argument!

It's probably because it's because i'm not putting it well

As I understand it, he’s not talking so much about whether seeing a robin in the garden means your granny is getting in touch from beyond the grave as he is about valuing the insights that come from imagination and creativity — he’s originally from an English Literature background before training as a psychiatrist.

It also got pretty mixed reviews. I haven’t read it, but I remember reading reviews that suggested that brain science hasn’t arrived at anywhere near the understanding of the hemispheres’ function thst would be needed to support IMcG’s big arguments about Western civilisation.

You can say we were not created as many times as you like. Just as I can say we were. Neither of us know. There is no proof.

I'm saying that not everything that is can be measured. Do these things then not exist?

@Datadriven

Couple of point's on your post.

You say, "... is not the only theory and others based on cooperation rather than survival of the fittest (and Dawkin’s selfish gene theory) are being considered."

This "survival of the fittest" mildly annoys me now. It totally threw me off, and I was in my early 50's before I actually understood evolution. I trained as an Engineer, not biology, and I spent too many of those years as an evangelical, partly because that phrase leads so easily into "intelligent design".

Now I refer to evolution as small random genetic changes that might give an organism in a particular environment an advantage, or a disadvantage.

Not very catchy I know, But it describes it better.

To quote you again :" I remain agnostic (atheism is a position of faith)."

No atheism is not a faith. Not in any way shape or form. I am atheist now, after the difficult process of de-converting, and there is no faith involved anywhere. Facts are facts, what is known is proven, what is unknown is just that, unknown.

I am not arguing with you on your post overall, just that last line.

Properly marshalled evidence is a fine thing. But where is it? People are saying, we have no proof therefore I know such and such does not exist.

It isn’t scientific: it is confusing the absence if proof with the proof of absence, and when it is done dogmatically I do call it smug. Unfactual assertions obscure facts

My mum and dad had sex, and here I am. We do know how that works. It is a proven fact.

Because you can’t prove a negative. Credulous posters tend to come back with ’Well, you can’t prove god/ghosts/Slender Men/Yetis/timeslips etc don’t exist!’ as if it’s some kind of gotcha. And then we get into Bertrand Russell’s teapot ie. the burden of proof lies on the person making unverifiable claims, as opposed to shifting the burden of disproof to others.