|
|
| Author |
Message |
wolfmage
|
|
Do You Believe This?
| 
Jun 22 16:03 UTC 1995 |
Can you be intelligent and maintain a spiritual lifestyle?
Often, people who choose to live a spiritual lifestyle are labeled as
being too emotional, and lacking the proper mental strength to reason.
Is it rational to have a well defined sense of spirituality?
I'm not going to define spirituality here. Spirituality can be philosophical,
religious, pagan, organized . . .etc. etc.
The issue here is a simple question:
Can you be intelligent, and still believe in something beyond the the five
senses?
Or are spiritual people weak minded and intelligence?
|
| 205 responses total. |
katie
|
|
response 1 of 205:
|
Jun 22 16:29 UTC 1995 |
The answer to your first question is yes. The second question I don't
understand.
|
crisper
|
|
response 2 of 205:
|
Jun 22 17:16 UTC 1995 |
intelligent people know that being labeled by others does not matter. If you
are comfortable with your sphere of consciousness then so be it?
But i think it is possible, and the more intelligence involved, the deeper
the whole ball of wax...
|
gregc
|
|
response 3 of 205:
|
Jun 22 22:31 UTC 1995 |
Rational thought and superstition do not mix.
|
adbarr
|
|
response 4 of 205:
|
Jun 22 23:43 UTC 1995 |
You are absolutely right, gregc, but it is bad luck to say that!
|
katie
|
|
response 5 of 205:
|
Jun 23 01:45 UTC 1995 |
Rational thought and intelligence are not interchangeable terms.
|
adbarr
|
|
response 6 of 205:
|
Jun 23 02:12 UTC 1995 |
rational thought is an oxymoron!? Anyway, no generalization
is worth a damn, including this one! Unquote - someone.
|
gregc
|
|
response 7 of 205:
|
Jun 23 05:08 UTC 1995 |
Actually Katie, I contend that rational thought and Intelligence go hand
in hand. Rational thought is part of the definition of intelligence.
Unfortunately, too many people have too many different definitions of
the concept of "intelligence", and many of those definitions are
irrational, IMO.
|
marcvh
|
|
response 8 of 205:
|
Jun 23 14:53 UTC 1995 |
I don't see that there is necessarily much connection between spirituality
and superstition; an assertion that they are the same thing seems
irrational.
|
sbj
|
|
response 9 of 205:
|
Jun 23 17:07 UTC 1995 |
Who asserted that?
|
phreakus
|
|
response 10 of 205:
|
Jun 23 17:22 UTC 1995 |
Unfortunately, many "intelligent" people believe that nothing can exist
beyond either the realm of science or their own (usually extremely
limited) imaginations. I believe that the universe is too d*.* *big*
for that to hold water.
\.
ooops
|
gregc
|
|
response 11 of 205:
|
Jun 23 17:48 UTC 1995 |
Ok, I'll assert that:
religion == superstition
|
birdlady
|
|
response 12 of 205:
|
Jun 23 18:25 UTC 1995 |
I believe that it takes *more* than a strong mind to fully believe and practice
a religion...whether it be Pagan, Buddhist, Christian, or Native American.
You're are devoting your entire self to that way of life, therefore you
involve your senses, heart, and soul. Everybody is entitled to believe in
whatever they want to, so I don't see certain religions as "superstitions". I
don't care if somebody worships their best friend's dog...they're still
holding firmly to what they believe in.
|
gregc
|
|
response 13 of 205:
|
Jun 24 00:50 UTC 1995 |
And I contend that a "strong mind" does not "fully believe" in anything.
Religion has at it's core the concept of unquestioning belief. Faith. Call
it what you will, it's a catch-22. Religous dogma crumbles under the
scrutiny of carefull, rational, logical thought. Doubt, question, doubt,
look further, ask more questions, and always being willing to throw out
what you thought was truth and start over, will lead you to a better
understanding of "truth", than blind belief in someone else's Book 'O Truths.
|
aruba
|
|
response 14 of 205:
|
Jun 24 04:11 UTC 1995 |
You said it pretty well, Greg. That's the path I follow, but I'm not in the
business of judging other people's paths.
|
marcvh
|
|
response 15 of 205:
|
Jun 24 06:17 UTC 1995 |
and I contend that spirituality does not necessarily have to do with
religion per se, either. #0 explicity said it was not talking about
religion, Greg, why do you keep bringing it up?
|
gregc
|
|
response 16 of 205:
|
Jun 24 07:12 UTC 1995 |
Umm, marcvh, I just went back and reread #0, and I could find *no* place
that "explicitly said it was not talking about religion". In fact the
second paragraph says:
"I'm not going to define spirituality here. Spirituality can be philosophical,
religious, pagan, organized . . .etc. etc."
|
adbarr
|
|
response 17 of 205:
|
Jun 24 14:43 UTC 1995 |
Re#13 "And I contend that a "strong mind" does not "fully believe" in
anything." This statement included?
|
marcvh
|
|
response 18 of 205:
|
Jun 24 15:07 UTC 1995 |
I read the original item as drawing spirituality in terms of "someting
beyond the five senses" and not in terms of religious dogma. Myself, I think
I would find the term "supernatural" a little closer to what I think #0 was
talking about. I don't think too many people here would try to defend
nuts with bumper stickers saying "God said it, I believe it, that
settles it" and "In event of rapture, this car will be driverless."
Such ideas relate to spirituality in the same fashion that Spam relates
to food.
(I think spirituality need not be dogmatic or supernatural or superstitious,
but don't really want to change this into an argument about definitions.)
|
gregc
|
|
response 19 of 205:
|
Jun 24 17:14 UTC 1995 |
Marcvh, I have no problem with how you interpret #0, but I suggest you go
look up "explicitly" in the dictionary. Interpreting what you think
something says, and having something stated "explicitly" are 2 very different
things.
Actually, I'm playing devil's advocate here. I tend to have more respect for
someone who claims to be "spiritual" instead of being "religous", the former
tends to indicate that they're using their head more than the latter, however
like the terms "love" and "beauty", everybody has their own definition or
the concept of "spirituality". For some, spirituality *is* religion, and for
others it's very far from religion. It's difficult to discuss something
objectively, when you can't even agree on language definitions. (You and I
can't even agree what the few words in #0 say, so how can we discuss an
even more complex subject? :-) )
|
sbj
|
|
response 20 of 205:
|
Jun 24 17:46 UTC 1995 |
Have I mentioned before how much I hate terminology? ;)
|
wolfmage
|
|
response 21 of 205:
|
Jun 24 17:54 UTC 1995 |
Let me clarify:
#0 was worded to be open ended. the basic direction I wanted to go was
to examine 'spirituality'. People can be spiritual about a great many things
and religion, philosophy, etc. are a part of many people's spirituality.
In general, I was asking if it's rational to believe in a larger universe
than can be measured, analyzed, quantified, and put into a test-tube.
Sorry if #0 was vague. I was grasping at trying not to take a position or
offend any individual's beliefs, or lack of beliefs.
|
ajohnson
|
|
response 22 of 205:
|
Jun 24 19:02 UTC 1995 |
Consider all views of the universe a form of comparative symbolic mythology.
Isn't Irony Ironic?
|
janc
|
|
response 23 of 205:
|
Jun 25 00:17 UTC 1995 |
If I comment on this item, I'll be back in the same old tired discussion with
Rane. I haven't anything new to say on the subject of people who are so
self-satisfied with their beliefs that they think their beliefs are somehting
better than other people's beliefs and should be called by a different word,
thus making it clear that they stand head-and-shoulders above the common
horde of people who believe things.
|
marcvh
|
|
response 24 of 205:
|
Jun 25 05:33 UTC 1995 |
(I actually did misphrase, sorry, I should have said something more like
"not just about religion.")
I'll drop my spirituality kick, since it seems pretty clear the intent was
to talk about the existence of a supernatural realm, something which is
by definition beyond scientific inquiry and (possibly) beyond rational
thought, not just beyond current understanding. I don't see as much of
anything useful can be said one way or the other about this area, including
whether or not it exists, since I have no idea what tools of inquiry to use
once methodical inquiry and rational thought have been left behind.
It really depends on the person. If somebody told me they believe they could
go to a Catholic communion, wait for the transubstantiation and then
spit out Christ into a napkin and have it tested to prove it is not just
grape juice and cardboard coated with saliva, I'd think that person
probably in need of some help. I'd like to think most people are more
subtle than that. I do know intelligent people who have thoughts about
such things, and don't really see myself as being arrogant enough to
be sure that I know better.
|
