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.

The answer to your first question is yes. The second question I don't
understand.

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...

Rational thought and superstition do not mix.

You are absolutely right, gregc, but it is bad luck to say that!

Rational thought and intelligence are not interchangeable terms.

rational thought is an oxymoron!? Anyway, no generalization
is worth a damn, including this one! Unquote - someone.

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.

I don't see that there is necessarily much connection between spirituality
and superstition; an assertion that they are the same thing seems 
irrational.

Who asserted that?

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

Ok, I'll assert that:
   religion == superstition

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.

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.

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.

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?

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."

Re#13 "And I contend that a "strong mind" does not "fully believe" in
anything." This statement included?

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.)

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? :-) )

Have I mentioned before how much I hate terminology? ;)

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.

Consider all views of the universe a form of comparative symbolic mythology.
Isn't Irony Ironic?

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.

(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.

Jan, if I understand what you're trying to say in #23(and that's a *big* if),
then I'd have to say that I don't agree. My observations are that there is
a small group of people that put a great deal of time and thought into 
attempting to solve life's little mysterys and evolve a rational system for
trying to understand the world. Unfortunately, I feel most people don't
really think about this much. They either "believe" what they were taught,
unquestioning acceptance, or if they do have some system, it is mostly
emotionally derived and has little to do with rational thought.

But I will agree that this is a tired subject. I tend to avoid it mostly these
days becuase it comprises mostly alot of typing for little gain. I'm not
going to change anybody's mind, and I have not seen any new arguments to
make me reconsider mine lately. However, I will keep reading these things
to see if anybody comes up with something truly *new*. :-)

spirituality = philosophy

For some, yes. For most, no.

I think the universe is bigger than a test tube.

When I say "religion", I am talking about my view on spirituality.  (Just to
clarify my original response).  In order to practice something or believe in
it, a person does need a strong mind.  Do you think you could comprehend some
of the religions or ways of life in this world on two fifths of Jack Daniels?
I know some people become philosophers when they're drunk, but that doesn't
count.  =)

 I know lots and lots of very intelligent people who believe in God. The fact
that I don't share theor beliefs doesn't cause me to doubt their intelligence
one whit. I infer that gregc thinks that, by definition, someone who is
religious/spiritual cannot be intelligent. That is very narrow minded, and,
I believe, wrong.

  But Sarah, what is the difference between philosophizing and
spiritualizing really?  Some would say its essentially the same thing, and it
is possible to actually become MORE lucid when slightly under the
influence.  I'd hazard to guess that many of the world's great
religions leaders AND philosophers have done some of their best work
after a fifth of whiskey or a glass of wine.  Lets not get personal
behaviours mixed into the definition of what a strong mind is.  

After all Einstein was a slob and as all lovers of Sherlock Holmes
stories know, the great detective always did his best work sitting in
his study stoned on morphine and hashish!  

I feel better about being a slob now.

Are our thoughts (and are we) infinite, or finite? Because we
cannot (now) know something - might it not be true tomorrow?
Recent photographs from HST seem to suggest our assumptions
should be reexamined.

I know some very intelligent people who are religious. I think the line is
drawn in how someone takes religion. 

(Sherlock Holmes did cocaine, not morphine and hashish, as I recall).

   What Katie said.  A couple of the smartest people I know happens to be 
Christians.  That's a counterexample if I ever heard one.
   A *positivist* is someone who believes only in those thing which are 
scientifically demonstrable.  If the question is, "Do you have to be a 
positivist to be intelligent", I would say no.  I also don't think 
science has a monopoly on truth.

We need to get val, selena, and cyberpnk in here - I'd like to see what they y
have to say about this.

Richard, I was *kidding*.  =)  I was merely trying to lighten up my end of
the conversation.  It's simply my personal view that a person cannot
effectively work a prayer, spell, etc under the influence of drugs or a large
amount of alcohol because their *entire* mind isn't into it.  I can speak
from personal experience, but it's different for every person.  If you want
to pray after an outing to the bar, go right ahead, that's your right.  I'm
just saying that *I* can't, and won't do it.  I'm not flaming, just stating
a fact that exists in my own little reality.  =)

Are religious people intelligent?  I know some, I think it's a question of
rational thinking as opposed to intelligence (I'll let y'all make up your own
minds about whether or not those terms are interchangeable).  Religion/
Spirituality are BELIEFS.  I have no problem with beliefs, or having faith
in any one thing.  Just because I can't do it, doesn't mean it's wrong.  
However, in the case of most religions, a person is giving over to total faith
meaning that they do not question their beliefs and abide by them totally.
In the case of christianity, for example, to even once question your 
religion is wrong.  So I find far too many religious individuals attempting
to argue their point from a rational basis.  I challenge anyone to come up with
a rationally sound argument for ANY religion.  I'm not saying that religion
isn't right, just that no one has convinced me to believe in i  

religion/spirituality = ideals that are not based on rational arguments

Faith is the substance of things hoped for.
It is the evidence of things not yet seen.
If you want to learn from God you must first come to him by faith.
Without faith it is impossible to know him.
If you hear the voice of God speaking to your spirit, come as you are
with the faith of a little child, and he will reveal his glory to you.
This glory he will reveal to you through Jesus the Christ.

- Backtalk version 1.3.30 - Copyright 1996-2006, Jan Wolter and Steve Weiss