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'll take the fact you deliberately miss the point as a evidence that you didn't have any counter

People on here are always saying trust your gut instinct, especially about a man or a situation you’re not comfortable with. There have been threads asking for people’s experiences about someone who gave them creepy vibes from the moment they met them and lots of people came on to share.

So why is it ok to have a gut instinct about people and situations as mentioned above, but it’s not ok to feel like there was a presence in the room? Does it not all come from the same part of your brain?

Everything can be measured though. We may not have the desire or capability to measure it all, but we can, or will.

Entropy, for example, could be viewed as a fairly abstract concept, but it has an Si unit, Joules per Kelvin.

The Human genome has been mapped. We could go further, and measure every individual atom, but no need. And of course the Heisenberg uncertainty principle comes into play.

What we do not have is Si units for prayer, or wishes. And be honest, that is not for want of trying. The conclusion for that, so far, is that there is no prayer energy. It's possible that might change. But there is no indication of that from any studies. Just statistical probability.

So what, really? I don’t say that out of intellectual laziness. My research is quite rigorous.

Let people work out best how to live good lives. Using religion or atheism as a pretext for looking down on others is wrong because the whole thing is undecidable. (Using either as a pretext for violence is of course unspeakable)

I find both sides hugely arrogant. To think they can know beyond all doubt, anything really.

I'm just talking about debating with people on beliefs, that's all, I'm not advocating burning them at the stake!

There’s nothing in the least ‘arrogant’ about not believing in a supernatural (whether that’s a deity or the existence of ghosts) for which there isn’t a shred of proof, though.

I mean, I’d be enormously interested, as I imagine most skeptics would, to be presented with credible evidence for the existence of life after death, or poltergeists, or whatever. Why wouldn’t I? It would completely change our sense of the possible.

But until that evidence is forthcoming, I will continue to think that other people’s ‘woo’ stories are generally attributable to sleep paralysis, childhood imagination or misunderstandings, pattern-making out of unrelated occurrences, unconscious exaggeration or rejigging of facts/timings, minor hallucination, group hysteria, understandable wishful thinking after bereavement etc.

Well, you say that…. Suppose we find primitive life on Mars or another planet, where it had clearly originated by abiogenesis. Can you then argue that abiogenesis happens everywhere in the universe but not on Earth? Or a Creator made humankind on Earth but only made microbes on other planets? Not sure that’s a very logical position.

They're different processes.

When you have a 'gut instinct' about a person, you're reading dozens of micro-clues from them: information your eyes, ears, nose and perhaps skin have picked up. You don't consciously notice all this as that would be overwhelming, but your unconscious mind does process it. It then makes judgements based on prior experience and, sometimes arguably, inherited experience as well.

When you feel like there's a presence nearby and the feeling is not informed by any specific sensory input, that's your brain doing an involuntary misfire. I get this sort of thing a lot. I know the reason and it's nothing to do with ghosts or spirits! I have minor hallucinations, too.

Your brain processes sensory data about what's outside your body, internal data from your biological systems, and does reciprocal processing within itself. The reciprocal processing can produce feelings that seem to have come from outside or inside your body.

How will we measure "justice"?

Your second post, above, is more reasonable sounding than your first. Debate is fine when both parties are up for it. Taking people to task, as you originally phrased it, sounds rather different.

I find the people who believe beyond all doubt that there is life after death, or ghosts or something like that not arrogant but hugely closed minded. Believing beyond all doubt that there isn’t is more understandable considering the years and years of research and experience that has resulted in no evidence whatsoever. But obviously, the sceptics amongst us will change our minds when presented with incontrovertible evidence. Pretty sure the same can’t be said for believers.

You can make a very long list of social abstractions and ask "how will we measure them". You won't be making any worthwhile point at all

I think you are misunderstanding. What science says is that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. I don’t dismiss ghosts completely but they don’t fit in with my coherent world model, so I would need some powerful evidence, that would also demolish my understanding of material interactions (ghosts walking through walls).

Perhaps I've used that phrase wrongly, apologies for that (I just looked it up - I've been using it wrongly all my adult life 😂)

Interesting - I am not British but DH is. He speaks of a parent taking a child to task, or similar.

Yes it’s because we follow western centric colonialist narratives still which see anything spiritual as backwards and outdated.

Well the Age of Enlightment is tighlty linked to a disbelief in spirituality and an adherance to the scientific method. Which led to a massive civilisation shift and progresses. There wouldn't human rights declaration without it.

You mean Rational, rather than intellectual. Rational is the opposite of spiritual.

IME it works both ways. Spiritual people tend to look down on intellectual people. I remember going for a massage before I started Uni and the therapist being very snooty and telling me I was desperately trying to please my "masculine" when I should be focusing on my feminine, all I was doing was trying to prove myself to a patriarchal society and I was ignoring my true feminine purpose....on and on for the entire hour. She made me feel completely shit. So if that is what spirituality does, I think I'm good.

It you’re wrong. We still do NOT know how life begins, what sparks a heart to beat. Humans cannot create life. We can trigger the events that we understand are needed to make that “life spark” kick in, but we cannot do it outside of that.

"Everything can be measured"

"How do you measure justice"

"I'm not going to answer as this isn't a worthwhile point"

Please elaborate and explain (like I'm 5) why this isn't worthwhile in response to someone who says that everything is measurable. Vague allusions just makes it look like you can't. Please be clear.

There wouldn't be human rights without God. Human rights are an extension of natural law. Natural as in God given. Without God, without this metaphysical underpinning, they won't last. Let's see what happens.

That's a lot of words for "I can't"

That was my short form counter. I will have a go at a longer version, although I will just be repeating what most people know.

I am here because my mum and dad had sex. We are great apes, out of Africa 200 k years ago, great apes from Catarrhines, blah blah, mammals, amphibians, fish, multi cell orgs, single cell, all the way to abiogenesis.

And folk are working on all of it. It is pretty much all mapped and explained.

At no point has a modern science said " Stop, we can't explain this bit or even theorize it, we need to insert a God here".

And for good reasons too. Because someone will say, likely in a Monty Python voice: " erm, where did this God come from ?"

Remember, over 99% of species that have existed on earth are extinct.

So realistically, wherever any God in inserted in the whole process, it's a bit of a waste full God, isn't it ?

If you are a theist, where in the, largely known and understood evolutionary model would you insert your preferred God ?

Serious question. Tell us all where, and we can discuss.