An imagined world--it's own thread

[Res Ipsa]

In a purely definitional sense, I would not classify a belief in anything supernatural as "rational." The problem as I see it is the baggage than the term "irrational carries along with it. In my view, everybody -- me included -- is a jumble of rational and irrational thought. I don't see the letter as carrying any kind of negative connotation. The import piece, from my perspective, is that rational thought is a more reliable way to come to the answers to certain types of questions.

But the baggage carried with the terms means that I'm better off not using them in discussions with people of faith. It results in offense where none is intended.

[Kishkumen]

So, is this just about getting atheists and agnostics to concede a possibility?

It is a discussion of epistemology, of possibilities, of the spirit of our age, its plusses and minuses. It covers a lot that is or may be of interest to a lot of people on this forum.

[Kishkumen]

How is someone who has lost their keys thinking they were mailed away, less likely then someone thinking there is a spirit world? It could be an unfair comparison, I suppose. But how would we know if there is no evidence for a spirit world outside of people's imaginations? It seems whenever anyone tries to justify belief in a spirit world they do nothing more than give us reason to think it does not exist, much like Sagan's dragon. Every explanation works to show its not to be found at all.

Come on, stem. Really? I think I was pretty clear about the parts I found ludicrous.

[Kishkumen]

In a purely definitional sense, I would not classify a belief in anything supernatural as "rational." The problem as I see it is the baggage than the term "irrational carries along with it. In my view, everybody -- me included -- is a jumble of rational and irrational thought. I don't see the letter as carrying any kind of negative connotation. The import piece, from my perspective, is that rational thought is a more reliable way to come to the answers to certain types of questions.

But the baggage carried with the terms means that I'm better off not using them in discussions with people of faith. It results in offense where none is intended.

Yeah, I really don't see the connection between rationality and materiality that is taken for granted here as being anything but ideological.

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

Perhaps the spirit world is just a metaverse our AI programmers set up for God. Our consciousnesses are mapped and uploaded to Spirit PrisonTM where we await our judgement.exe 2.1 that tallies up our point totals and assigns us our next quest in one of the various Kingdoms © . Hopefully some of make it to the one where we get to keep our balls.

- Doc

[Philo Sofee]

This sounds like a scenario cooked up by someone who is working really hard to discredit spirituality through the use of absurd examples. Ordinarily, people who are moved to do something by what they believe to be spiritual motivators do not see themselves as simply randomly imagining things and then, becoming convinced of them, acting on them. There is an unprompted stimulus of some kind in the form of a sense, a feeling, or a dream that makes them think they are being guided to do something they might not otherwise have come up with themselves.

I am open to sayin that these are the result of intuitions based on stimuli that are not fully consciously processed. On the other hand, someone might say that there really is a spiritual motivation prompting these things. I am happy to remain open to both possibilities. I don't need it to be one or the other.

At best this is a person who has no experience of the spiritual trying, with poor results, to imagine what it must be like to be spiritual, except in an unconsciously uncharitable way. ("Since spirituality is stupid, it must be as stupid as this.")

Spirituality is possible, now what? Concede our politics to someone like Bush who claims to have been influenced by god to start a war with Iraq? Allow someone like Oaks to tell us what to do as far as marriage or abortion? The religious freedom fight seems to be merely the priest class bitching about not having the sway they once did over society and if that is where you are headed, then count me out. However, if "spirituality is possible" just means that there is a possibility that it exists but we don't know and the proof of such is not within our grasp but there are some that want to believe that such is real, then ok. It could be merely the subconscious brain finding patterns that ultimately mean something or perhaps it is spiritual and we as a species are still in our infant stage as far as harnessing this. Just don't tread on me or use it to force a politics onto the rest of us because someone had an emotional experience.

I use it to better myself and others around me. I also use science in the same way. I also use imagination the same way. It's vastly more exciting to live with and by imagination than the real world of wake up to the alarm, hurry get dressed, eat, go to work for 8 hours doing something someone else wants you to, come home exhausted and watch t.v. until you go in the same circle again. Imagination gives living worth.
I have bad news for you, EVERYTHING you experience with others is based on emotional experience, of either someone else or yourself. You imagine (yep, that word) being robotic would be better, more productive, safer, and it could be, but at what price? I LOVE being human with my imagination and feelings and living, seeing, breathing, smelling, and experiencing the world as a feeling living being. If that's a bad thing, count me IN.
I have a feeling that the word spirituality is being placed with imagination, and I dunno if that is accurate or not. But having imagination is the very BEST thing about being human. It has given us every single possible invention we enjoy right now. Imagination is the ground or our reality, not some sideshow. At least so far as I can see it.
The subjectivity of objectivity is noted. But objectivity has no more reality than subjectivity, it's just emphasized more, for whatever reasons. I use both, without question... It makes me a more full and complete person, and I am enjoying that. Just my two cents worth.

[Philo Sofee]

In a purely definitional sense, I would not classify a belief in anything supernatural as "rational." The problem as I see it is the baggage than the term "irrational carries along with it. In my view, everybody -- me included -- is a jumble of rational and irrational thought. I don't see the letter as carrying any kind of negative connotation. The import piece, from my perspective, is that rational thought is a more reliable way to come to the answers to certain types of questions.

But the baggage carried with the terms means that I'm better off not using them in discussions with people of faith. It results in offense where none is intended.

Yeah, I really don't see the connection between rationality and materiality that is taken for granted here as being anything but ideological.

After all Kish, materiality itself is based upon our own human SIZE...... everything we believe is actually *real* is just a matter of magnitude..... nothing objective need apply, it is fundamentally entirely subjective - amazingly enough! It's what is labeled "experience." Non-fiction cannot tell me what my own experience means to me, but I sure know, whether anyone else does or not.

[dastardly stem]

In a purely definitional sense, I would not classify a belief in anything supernatural as "rational." The problem as I see it is the baggage than the term "irrational carries along with it. In my view, everybody -- me included -- is a jumble of rational and irrational thought. I don't see the letter as carrying any kind of negative connotation. The import piece, from my perspective, is that rational thought is a more reliable way to come to the answers to certain types of questions.

But the baggage carried with the terms means that I'm better off not using them in discussions with people of faith. It results in offense where none is intended.

Sounds about right, Res Ipsa.

[dastardly stem]

Come on, stem. Really? I think I was pretty clear about the parts I found ludicrous.

I think I understand why it sounds ludicrous. I'm not sure how it's any more ludicrous than the existence of a spirit world.

[Res Ipsa]

In a purely definitional sense, I would not classify a belief in anything supernatural as "rational." The problem as I see it is the baggage than the term "irrational carries along with it. In my view, everybody -- me included -- is a jumble of rational and irrational thought. I don't see the letter as carrying any kind of negative connotation. The import piece, from my perspective, is that rational thought is a more reliable way to come to the answers to certain types of questions.

But the baggage carried with the terms means that I'm better off not using them in discussions with people of faith. It results in offense where none is intended.

Yeah, I really don't see the connection between rationality and materiality that is taken for granted here as being anything but ideological.

I don't think I'm taking the connection for granted. It's certainly not necessary by any means. And I could at any second go whole hog post modern deconstruction and argue there's no meaningful distinction at all. And I'm not sure that what I'm thinking of as rational though is limited to materiality. For example, how would we classify purely logical arguments?

Do you find the rational/irrational distinction helpful at all?