Spiritualism vs. Intellectualism

[Satori]

What follows is just subjective bullshit, I'm not suggesting it's "true" or "real", it's just a way of looking at it that makes sense to me, just an interpretation...



It occured to me that spiritualism (being supersticious/religious) and intellectualism (being logical) are mutually exclusive in most people, that is, if someone is spiritual they are typically a little on the dumber side of the spectrum and so aren't very logical, and someone who is intellectual typically regards spirituality as a pathetic joke (including non-religious/atheistic types of spiritualism such as buddhism, yoga, martial arts, meditation, etc.)

What is the reason for this polarization of mentalities?

A theory I came up with is that spiritualism and intellectualism are just manifestations of the old left brain/right brain scenario.

If someone is more left-brained and emotionally based then I think this person is more likely to be kooky-spiritual, believing in some implausible nonsense which is validated by their own delusion-based fantasy world as they go through life awash in a myriad of emotions which greatly hinders their objectivity when it comes to determining what is "real" and what is a complete fabrication of their own mind.

It is my contention that emotion negates reason. For example, when a women has a hormonal flux and gets emotional and freaks out, is she thinking at all rationally/logically? No, emotion negates reason. When a man gets pissed off and has the urge to smack someone, or if he gets really fucking horney and starts thinking he has a shot at fucking some chick he's been thinking about, is he thinking rationally/logically? No.

Emotion negates reason.

Likewise, reason negates emotion, something I think is pretty evident, the 2 are seemingly forever mutuallly exclusive. Of course we all live somewhere between the 2 extremes and we all go from one extreme to anther, and depending on where you are I think this in part can determine whether or not you'll be religious.

In my travels I've had the opportunity to pick the brains of a great many deeply religious people and I have noticed they all share some things in common:
- They are very emotional about their convictions, they believe as they do because they "feel" the "presense of god", "spirituality" or whatever
- They completely negate their own logic and common sense in favour of what they "feel" is true/correct (emotionally based)
- They are confident that they have received some sort of "proof" of their convictions based on some internal and completely subjective (emotion based) experience (ie. I once had someone tell me they believe in 'god' because when they pray for strength they get it, some people think god talks to them in their head, hmmmmm..)

It seems to me that spirituality/religion is primarily an emotional affair, even to the point of purposefully condemning logic and common sense (which is what many of the more whacky religions do in their proclamation of "faith" and their insistance that the logical side of one's mind is something to be oppressed and frowned upon).

So in a nut-shell, here's what I think:

Religious people are more likely to be emotionally based in their perspectives about reality and since emotion negates reason these people are generally (not always, just generally) less intellectual and therefore we regard them as less intelligent (since intelligence is pretty much a measurement of intellectuality, something which is at odds with spritualism). I don't think that people are religious *because* they are less intelligent, I think there is simply a coorelation between being religious and being illogical, one does not cause the other, instead they both stem from an emotionally based mindset.

Someone who is very emotional (and therefore non-intellectual since emotion negates reason) in their thinking has a great deal of trouble differentiating between fantasy and reality. Religious people are also notorious for their inablity to distinguish fact from fiction.. and I see this as much more than just a coincidence.

Sorry if I didn't make too much sense, I was speed-typing, hehe.

Satori

 

[Sullen Jester]

Originally posted by Satori
Emotion negates reason.

True.

Originally posted by Satori
Someone who is very emotional (and therefore non-intellectual since emotion negates reason) in their thinking has a great deal of trouble differentiating between fantasy and reality. Religious people are also notorious for their inablity to distinguish fact from fiction.. and I see this as much more than just a coincidence.

True.

 

[Misanthrope]

Someone who is very emotional (and therefore non-intellectual since emotion negates reason) in their thinking has a great deal of trouble differentiating between fantasy and reality.

Nay, you can draw the line. Im probably the most emocional person that there is, and i dont have any problems differenciating fantasy from reality, im one of those persons who are irlove making poems and at the same time explain my love as a chemical reaction in certain parts in my brain making myself obsesive about a person. In a way i do know love is stupid but i look for it nonetheless, my mouth says something and my heart ends up doing what it wants. Its not pretty, cause i live 99% of the time in regret for ignoring my mind, but it is viable and possible to be aware you are not racional and that you are pretty fucking stupid for being sentimental, and yet continuing being sentimental.

 

[Belial]

That all seems true, yet I've met some devout Christians who are very intelligant and rational. To an extent that I can't believe they're Christians. I've lost a great deal of respect for Christianity over the years, to the point where I finally realize that it is a cult, just like all organized religions. But meeting the people I refered to, I wonder how people so logical and rational can devote themselves to Christianity.

 

[Sadistik]

I don't think religous people are less INTELLIGENT, just that they don't allow their intelligence to shine through. They will use their spirituality to cloud their interpretation of very real events that their intelligence tells them happen for a reason other than their beliefs. For example: A man shoots another. A bystander's intellectual self says "This man killed this other man for no reason. That man is now dead and gone forever". Not a nice though to many people, so the spiritual self steps in and says "Hey, intellectual self, it's OK. God had a plan, and the bad man will go to hell and the other man is now in heaven frollicking with angels". In this case, the spiritual side wins, not because the person isn't intelligent, but rather unaccepting of reality

 

[Lina]

Correction, Satori: Left-brained people are less emotional and more realistic. Right-brained people are the artsy, dreamy types. This matters, because I tell everyone I'm left-brained and I don't want any confusion here!

Originally posted by Sadistik
I don't think religous people are less INTELLIGENT, just that they don't allow their intelligence to shine through. They will use their spirituality to cloud their interpretation of very real events that their intelligence tells them happen for a reason other than their beliefs.

I disagree. If they were truly intelligent, their intelligence would win out. I've said many times that I don't remember ever deciding to wake up one day and realize religion was bullshit. It was always just blatantly apparent. Intelligent people can't delude themselves.

 

[Satori]

Originally posted by Misanthrope
Nay, you can draw the line. Im probably the most emocional person that there is, and i dont have any problems differenciating fantasy from reality, im one of those persons who are irlove making poems and at the same time explain my love as a chemical reaction in certain parts in my brain making myself obsesive about a person. In a way i do know love is stupid but i look for it nonetheless, my mouth says something and my heart ends up doing what it wants. Its not pretty, cause i live 99% of the time in regret for ignoring my mind, but it is viable and possible to be aware you are not racional and that you are pretty fucking stupid for being sentimental, and yet continuing being sentimental.

Interesting stuff. From my point of view (which is of course all I have) you are more intellectual than emotional because you are keenly self-aware and can see that your emotions aren't literally "real", even if you can't deny their impact on you.

Of course, this is all speculative bullshit/opinion.

Satori

 

[Satori]

Originally posted by Sadistik
I don't think religous people are less INTELLIGENT, just that they don't allow their intelligence to shine through. They will use their spirituality to cloud their interpretation of very real events that their intelligence tells them happen for a reason other than their beliefs.

I see what you mean. Could it also be that their emotional minds are impeding the intelligence from shining through? hmmm..

Satori

 

[Satori]

Originally posted by Lina
Correction, Satori: Left-brained people are less emotional and more realistic. Right-brained people are the artsy, dreamy types. This matters, because I tell everyone I'm left-brained and I don't want any confusion here!

Whatever would I do without your guidance? heheh

Satori

 

[Obyeybyeogone]

That all seems true, yet I've met some devout Christians who are very intelligant and rational. To an extent that I can't believe they're Christians.

My stupid theory:

They may be intelligent and educated in many things, but when it comes to the logical part of thinking that contradicts their religion, this logic alone is shut out in favor of emotional/spiritual thinking. Even if they're very intelligent, they no longer think about that part, they don't keep asking themselves "Am I sure about this creationism thing? Why do I believe this, does this make much sense?" As soon as that train of thought would start for the first few times they instead think "God doesn't want me questioning him, I won't think about this evolution thing." That line of thought is then just shut off, it doesn't go through their brain anymore. I did this same thing, the only thing that changed my mind was the pure absurdudy of certain aspects of Christianity. Had I been born a Hindu, I probably would have found nothing so absurd as to pull away from the religion (Of course the fear isn't of hell in Hinduism, only of reincarnation, so maybe I would have broken from that too).

 

[Sadistik]

Theres a reason that there has always been groups of intellectuals who renounce religion. From the B.C. times in Hindu culture there was a group called Carvackans, made up of young intellectuals who renounced all spiritualism. Thats just one example. They exist in all cultures, and they seem to be looked down upon by the general, religous public, despite the acceptance of their intellectual strengths.

 

[Satori]

There are a lot of really smart fuckers here, many of whom has posted in this thread. Very cool.

Satori

 

[Xtokalon]

As the only apologist on this board, I must assert that it's empirically true: there are no preconditions pertaining to iq for a person's being religious or not.

I know many intelligent christians, those who are phd's, have been to Princeton and/or other schools, are doctors working on genomics, are evolutionists, are walking humanisitics encyclopedias etc. This renders both of these propositions true, that atheists are smart and christians are smart. It's not about intellectual capacity so much as it about different forms of thinking, "reasons to believe," reasonings which are not neccesarily exclusive to each other or contradictory to each other.

There are number of things floating in the positions of a few people who have posted in this thread. One I perceive is "materialism", or "scientism", the view, or the priviledging of the view, that the natural sciences should guide or make for the absolute touchstone of one's *ethical* beliefs- at the exclusion of other forms of thinking. The neccesary note to consider is that this logic, or strain of reasoning that compell some people to be atheistic, has no bearing (and is not contradictory) to those who choose to be religious. And let's consider the fact that people are religious for hetergenous reasons- emotional, some political, some philosophical, some scientific, and some that are pure inculturations of some kind. The reality is very diverse- and in fact it's completely individual and should be dealt with as such.

I find something immanently disgusting, as I always have, about "religionism" (hatred, intolerance towards the religious or theistic, or towards particular religions) in this world. In the ultimate context, there's no need for it. Even more disgusting is the "scientism" I spoke in the above, that is, the priviledging (sp?) of some kind of materialistic calculus a) at the exclusion of other forms of thinking; and b) under the fallacy that one thing is necessarily incompatible with the other thing.

X, who tentatively posts to the best of his intellect but who hasn't yet decided whether it makes sense to anyone other than himself.

 

[Blackspirit]

Originally posted by Satori
If someone is more left-brained and emotionally based then I think this person is more likely to be kooky-spiritual, believing in some implausible nonsense which is validated by their own delusion-based fantasy world as they go through life awash in a myriad of emotions which greatly hinders their objectivity when it comes to determining what is "real" and what is a complete fabrication of their own mind.

This just got me thinking....

You wrote "What is real" Well, this person being spiritual...
The thing that this person believes in is THE REAL THING for this person!
Isn't it obvious? As long as this person believes something it is the real thing.

We don’t know what is real, you think you know what is real, but that is only
what is real to YOU! That’s your belief. Maybe spiritualism is the right way?
Maybe God does exist? Maybe you die and that’s it?
Who knows? You’ll know when you’re dead.

What I mean is we’re all being blurred my our views on life, our ways of
seeing things, our hobbies, the things/people we love. We’re never objective…
We all have different ways of seeing things, and we all have different
things we believe in, so there is nothing that is the REAL thing for everyone.
What you believe in is right for YOU, and no one else,
cause they will never see it in the exact way as you do.

We always judge people because they believe in something, but I think that i
t’s only good for a person to have something to believe in. You get a goal,
something to reach for. It may be God you believe in. Sometimes people overdo
it and you know how it ends up. But being spiritual/intellectual is just good
for you… As long as you don’t take it too far ) There’s nothing wrong in
believing in anything as long as you feel it’s the right thing for you, you
don’t push your belief on anyone else and you don’t take it too far )

 

[Satori]

Originally posted by Xtokalon
As the only apologist on this board, I must assert that it's empirically true: there are no preconditions pertaining to iq for a person's being religious or not.

Of course, if not for any other reason than simply because the measure of someone's iq is itself a subjective thing and is devoid of any sort of absolutist thing which everyone can agree on.

It's not about intellectual capacity so much as it about different forms of thinking, "reasons to believe," reasonings which are not neccesarily exclusive to each other or contradictory to each other.

That's exactly what I think too, different ways of thinking, perhaps thinking with the heart as opposed to the head, if you'll excuse the cliche, hehe.

And let's consider the fact that people are religious for hetergenous reasons- emotional, some political, some philosophical, some scientific, and some that are pure inculturations of some kind. The reality is very diverse- and in fact it's completely individual and should be dealt with as such.

I find something immanently disgusting, as I always have, about "religionism" (hatred, intolerance towards the religious or theistic, or towards particular religions) in this world. In the ultimate context, there's no need for it.

While I agree with this premise, I feel that "hatred" and "intolerance" are rather strong words to be using, most people who think religious myths are ultimately harmful nonsense are neither hateful or intolerant, they simply believe that it would be best for everyone if humans could accept reality as it presents itself rather than fabricating 101 different and often conflicting myths which serve to further alienate people from one another (one of the biggest problems our species have ever faced and continues to deal with even now).

X, who tentatively posts to the best of his intellect but who hasn't yet decided whether it makes sense to anyone other than himself.

It does!

Satori the sacreligious bastard

 

[Satori]

Originally posted by Blackspirit
You wrote "What is real" Well, this person being spiritual...
The thing that this person believes in is THE REAL THING for this person!

So, what you are saying is.. "reality is subjective". Where have I heard this before? heheh

Isn't it obvious? As long as this person believes something it is the real thing.

Certainly, but for the purpose of this discussion to avoid confusion I meant "real" to mean that which is tangible and observable by most all people and is logical to most all people, ie. the chicken-pocks suck.

[We don’t know what is real, you think you know what is real, but that is only what is real to YOU! That’s your belief. Maybe spiritualism is the right way? Maybe God does exist? Maybe you die and that’s it? Who knows? You’ll know when you’re dead.

Maybe none of this actually matters?

There’s nothing wrong in
believing in anything as long as you feel it’s the right thing for you, you don’t push your belief on anyone else and you don’t take it too far )

Too far, yes, exactly. It's a shame however that stong convictions and dangerous fanaticism seem to go hand in hand. I feel this is because often metaphysical convictions are used as justification for extreme behaviour, which is not a good thing.

I find it interesting how you say there's nothing wrong with believing anything as long as you don't push your belief on anyone else, but this is exactly what happens in real life, children are fed xyz religion/mythology/hate/whatever before they are old enough to handle it. So these people who you think are fine to believe whatever they want are actually victims of something you oppose (having someone else's beliefs forced on you).

I have a strong conviction that self-delusion (religious or otherwise) is ultimately counter-productive and sends a lot of people chasing false goals for the wrong reasons while neglecting that which is truly real and truly important: REALITY, the here and the now, this very moment.

Btw, I think I am one of the most spiritual people I know of and yet I don't delude myself with fantasies and self-importance, from my point of view deluding is anti-spiritual and is much more an exercise in self-oppression than it is self-actualization or self-realization (what should be (but often is not) the goal of any form of spirituality).

Satori

 

[luke]

I was kind of getting around to this when I posted about the Kantian philosophy and denial of objectivity when I posted about the fundamentals of Nazi philosophy.(unfortunately a computer crash over the weekend put me out of business- I'm lying, it was the fiesta that's had me up all night everynight till 7 am )
The bulk of 19th century thinkers were in fact well into irrationalism - the fact that they drew different conclusions from their belief in subjectivism is worthy of note; but the denial of reality on objective terms seems a little naive to me.
The world is manifest regardless of our perception or existance.

 

[Satori]

Before I retire to a night of chanting satanic verses, beheading chickens, and eating sushi, I'd like to pose a question, particularly to Xtokalon and Blackspirit, but anyone else who'd like to jump in:

Is it REALLY "ok" for people to have such a wide range of conflicting beliefs, beliefs which serve as justification for a great deal of antisocial behaviour and create social division?

Going further, where do you draw the line? If your son/brother/great aunt's cousin fell into some bizarre cult which involved them inserting purple smarties into their asses and kneeling for 4 hours everyday, would you think this is really ok? Or would you feel the cult is actually a bad thing and that they are wasting their short and precious lives chasing a pointless myth?

Satori

 

[Sadistik]

Is it REALLY "ok" for people to have such a wide range of conflicting beliefs, beliefs which serve as justification for a great deal of antisocial behaviour and create social division?

Unfortunately, one of the great societal paradoxes is that by saying "it's not ok", we are judging, which gives them the same ammo to fight back with as "they don't want us to do this, which isn't right. They need to be stopped". It is from this well of social conflict that all rebellions (physical and mental) come. So therefore while detrimental (in my opinion) to society, it HAS to be allowed, or we give equal cause for the opposite reaction (or backlash if you will). Therefore, backlashes, while necessary for change, inevitably stir up reprisal backlashes. It must thusly be allowed that all can have their own ideas, even if not "ok".

Doesn't mean we have to like it though....

 

[Blackspirit]

Originally posted by Satori
Before I retire to a night of chanting satanic verses, beheading chickens, and eating sushi, I'd like to pose a question, particularly to Xtokalon and Blackspirit, but anyone else who'd like to jump in:

Is it REALLY "ok" for people to have such a wide range of conflicting beliefs, beliefs which serve as justification for a great deal of antisocial behaviour and create social division?

Going further, where do you draw the line? If your son/brother/great aunt's cousin fell into some bizarre cult which involved them inserting purple smarties into their asses and kneeling for 4 hours everyday, would you think this is really ok? Or would you feel the cult is actually a bad thing and that they are wasting their short and precious lives chasing a pointless myth?

Satori

Is it OK for someone to have belief that make them antisocial...?
What do you mean by that? Social division? You don't have to be religious
to be antisocial. I know I am antisocial, and I am not religious ) And for
the social division.... You shouldn't devide yourself from someone because
they don't believe the same things as you do, but that's exactly what some
people do. Knowing people with many different beliefs will only make you
wiser, in my opinion )

If someone I knew very well was sucked into a cult my world would
fall appart! Hehe.... Because I don't think I know anyone who are that weak....
But you never know.

It would not be ok, and I would try to talk some sense into that person,
before he/sheis totally lost. But I don't think I could do much about it,
because we all have our own free will.....

Believe in what you want, if it feels right for you, and don't take it too far )
Same old, same old >P