Is belief in spiritual or supernatural entities a sign of mental weakness or illness?

[alreadyGone]

9 minutes ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

That would obviously depend on whether or not the entirety can be measured.  If I say, "this is entirely too big to exist within my front yard" then we're dealing in objectivity.  But if I say, "this is entirely too complicated to be defined by mere words," then... well, I can't explain it but hearing the Russian language makes me feel angry and see red.

 

Please re-read my post.

 

Anything "supernatural" is entirely subjective.

 

Anything supernatural...

 

[alreadyGone]

2 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

I'm not trying to argue at all.  I'm sorry, but I don't think you are actually comprehending the objective/subjective aspect of the conversation.  

 

 

 

Noted.

Thank you.

[Edgarcito]

34 minutes ago, alreadyGone said:

That original quote is intended to convey various things, both philosophic and poetic.

 

Among them:

I think, and that satisfies my quest to have certainty that I do indeed exist.

 

 

 

I think perhaps you seek to argue for the sake of doing so.

Sorry, not particularly interested today.

 

My original challenge stands:

Provide objective evidence for the existence of any spirit, of any kind, anywhere.

 

 

 

All I am saying is if we had the ability to adequately study the brain, then maybe we could understand where the individual/soul/spirit perception comes from.  I.e., mechanism A provides for this animation but only in conjunction with mechanism B.  Mechanism C and environment influence A provides for this other animation but only with mechanisms A, B, and F and environmental factor G.  Joe Bob has A,B, and C "soul".  Sally has "soul" A-Z.  It's never gonna happen because there are an immeasurable number of chemical reactions happening each instant in time.

 

This is an argument for your side, not mine.  But it's why the only answer is faith in something.  Faith in science or faith in God....not a biggie, pick one.

 

 

[TheRedneckProfessor]

1 hour ago, alreadyGone said:

EDITED:

Anything "supernatural" is entirely subjective.

 

If it exists outside the laws of nature (physics), by what (human) sense or system of measurement would you prove the existence of the thing?

 

 

 

1 hour ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

Can a definition be subjective and still be a definition (i.e. "definitive")?

 

1 hour ago, alreadyGone said:

 

".. is entirely subjective"

Ah, okay.  I was working with the original, unedited, post which was "...by definition subjective."  Based on that, I understood that we were still exploring definitions.

 

I agree that if it cannot be objectively studied or observed, then it must be, by definition, entirely subjective. 

[TheRedneckProfessor]

As I see it, most people accept the existence of both soul and spirit based largely on the ubiquity of the concepts,, rather than on any definable, objective evidence.  Much like a Westerner who is not raised in a religious environment might still nominally believe in a god or higher power simply because the concept is so prevalent in Western society.  That's why I think these threads in particular, are both useful and necessary; because they force us to more closely examine what we believe because we really believe it, versus what we believe because somebody (or a bunch of somebodies) told us we should.

[◊ Weezer ◊]

13 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

 

  But it's why the only answer is faith in something.  Faith in science or faith in God....not a biggie, pick one.

 

Does it have to be either/or?  Can't you believe in "something" we have yet to understand outside science?  I beieve in that, but don't believe it is in the form of God as we understand him from biblical descriptions.

[walterpthefirst]

 4 hours ago, Edgarcito said:

I assume we can describe ourselves in the place where we exist and perhaps a few steps beyond.  So we perceive ourselves as both objective and subjective.  I expect our definitions are both objective and subjective, but our objective ones are labeled with "certainty" because we ultimately are still only subjects.....and will be as humans.  Hence A definition, but very loose.

 

Perhaps given we actually understand the mechanisms of the brain and then calculate all the environmental and genetic factors, we might turn the "soul" into a more certain definition.

 

I'll donate my brain to ExC in a pickle jar if y'all would wish to study it after my demise....

 

 

Expand  

 

Good post. Definitions are just mental constructs. 

 

 

--------------------------------------------------------

 

 

Re: my earlier post...

 

If definitions are just mental constructs, for the sake of communication between us, these constructs/definitions should be described only in terms that are meaningful and acceptable to everyone involved in the discussion.

 

Otherwise, by attaching our own personal (i.e., subjective) meanings to these things we exclude others who do share these personal meanings.

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

[walterpthefirst]

4 hours ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

Can a definition be subjective and still be a definition (i.e. "definitive")?

 

Yes, it can be.

 

But it depends on the context.

 

My subjective definitions are proper only to me and I cannot expect anyone else to share in them.

 

I would submit that is true for everyone.

 

In the wider context of communication between people we must give up our subjective definitions in favour of more objective ones that others can agree upon - like the part of the visual spectrum that we call blue.

 

Each of us will have our subjective definitions of blue, but these are of no help and no use in interpersonal communication.

 

The totally subjective must yield to the more objective for the sake of communication.

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

[walterpthefirst]

3 hours ago, Edgarcito said:

I'm not trying to argue at all.  I'm sorry, but I don't think you are actually comprehending the objective/subjective aspect of the conversation.  

 

 

 

If people involved in this discussion are not comprehending something then the dialogue needs to become more objective and less subjective.

 

 

[walterpthefirst]

3 hours ago, Edgarcito said:

All I am saying is if we had the ability to adequately study the brain, then maybe we could understand where the individual/soul/spirit perception comes from.  I.e., mechanism A provides for this animation but only in conjunction with mechanism B.  Mechanism C and environment influence A provides for this other animation but only with mechanisms A, B, and F and environmental factor G.  Joe Bob has A,B, and C "soul".  Sally has "soul" A-Z.  It's never gonna happen because there are an immeasurable number of chemical reactions happening each instant in time.

 

This is an argument for your side, not mine.  But it's why the only answer is faith in something.  Faith in science or faith in God....not a biggie, pick one.

 

 

 

Or, there simply isn't such a thing as human soul / spirit.

 

Occam's Razor once again suggests that the less complex answer is more likely to be the correct one.

 

That said, many people choose to believe in the existence of such things, not for rational or evidence-based reasons but for irrational and emotional reasons.

 

Please note that I'm not making a case either way.

 

Each to their own.

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

[midniterider]

5 hours ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

Here we've entered into circular reasoning, perhaps unwittingly. 

 

"Define 'spirit'."

 

"That's somebody's soul."

 

"Okay, define 'soul'."

 

"Well, that's the spiritual part of somebody."

 

♾

 

I just provided definitions of words that others couldnt/wouldn't provide. 

 

I don't vouch for their veracity, reality, existence. 

[walterpthefirst]

5 hours ago, midniterider said:

 

Soul: the spiritual or immaterial part of a human being or animal, regarded as immortal.

 

 

 

Surely it would be more accurate if it read like this?

 

...regarded by some as real despite a lack of evidence and regarded by others as imaginary because of a lack of evidence.

 

That way, those who chose to believe in the soul's existence are given their say and those that do not, ditto.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

15 minutes ago, midniterider said:

 

I just provided definitions of words that others couldnt/wouldn't provide. 

 

I don't vouch for their veracity, reality, existence. 

I knew what you were after doing.  But I wanted to bring to bear that appealing to one undefined term to define another leaves both terms undefined. 

[midniterider]

4 minutes ago, walterpthefirst said:

 

Surely it would be more accurate if it read like this?

 

...regarded by some as real despite a lack of evidence and regarded by others as imaginary because of a lack of evidence.

 

That way, those who chose to believe in the soul's existence are given their say and those that do not, ditto.

 

Should you or I email the Oxford people?

 

I'm not sure, Walter if adding in personal preference helps to define something. What if a dictionary said something like, "Abortion: Deliberate termination of a pregnancy that, in some people's opinion makes baby Jesus cry but other people think is ok."

[walterpthefirst]

9 minutes ago, midniterider said:

 

Should you or I email the Oxford people?

 

I'm not sure, Walter if adding in personal preference helps to define something. What if a dictionary said something like, "Abortion: Deliberate termination of a pregnancy that, in some people's opinion makes baby Jesus cry but other people think is ok."

 

I take your point midniterider.

 

But that's the territory we have to navigate here in this forum, if we want to promote dialogue.

 

Some members believe in the existence of the soul despite a lack of evidence for it.

 

Others reject the existence of the soul because of a lack of evidence for it.

 

If a definition is adopted in this thread that rules one of these out then how can dialogue proceed?

 

You see my point?

 

 

 

 

 

 

[midniterider]

2 minutes ago, walterpthefirst said:

 

I take your point midniterider.

 

But that's the territory we have to navigate here in this forum, if we want to promote dialogue.

 

Some members believe in the existence of the soul despite a lack of evidence for it.

 

Others reject the existence of the soul because of a lack of evidence for it.

 

If a definition is adopted in this thread that rules one of these out then how can dialogue proceed?

 

You see my point?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Oh, I absolutely see  your point of word definitions with regard to this thread. Dialogue cannot proceed (too well, anyway - lol)  if someone says there is something called supernatural but can't/won't define it while the rest of the group say supernatural is outright bullshit. 

[walterpthefirst]

3 minutes ago, midniterider said:

 

Oh, I absolutely see  your point of word definitions with regard to this thread. Dialogue cannot proceed (too well, anyway - lol)  if someone says there is something called supernatural but can't/won't define it while the rest of the group say supernatural is outright bullshit. 

 

Agree.

 

So, we have a stand off between the believers and the sceptics.

 

Right now I can't see a way to resolve this.

 

But maybe some clever person can do so and I'll read about it when I log on again in the morning.

 

Bye!

[Edgarcito]

2 hours ago, walterpthefirst said:

 

If people involved in this discussion are not comprehending something then the dialogue needs to become more objective and less subjective.

 

 

Tell that to all those ex-wives out there Walter...

[Edgarcito]

2 hours ago, walterpthefirst said:

 4 hours ago, Edgarcito said:

I assume we can describe ourselves in the place where we exist and perhaps a few steps beyond.  So we perceive ourselves as both objective and subjective.  I expect our definitions are both objective and subjective, but our objective ones are labeled with "certainty" because we ultimately are still only subjects.....and will be as humans.  Hence A definition, but very loose.

 

Perhaps given we actually understand the mechanisms of the brain and then calculate all the environmental and genetic factors, we might turn the "soul" into a more certain definition.

 

I'll donate my brain to ExC in a pickle jar if y'all would wish to study it after my demise....

 

 

Expand  

 

Good post. Definitions are just mental constructs. 

 

 

--------------------------------------------------------

 

 

Re: my earlier post...

 

If definitions are just mental constructs, for the sake of communication between us, these constructs/definitions should be described only in terms that are meaningful and acceptable to everyone involved in the discussion.

 

Otherwise, by attaching our own personal (i.e., subjective) meanings to these things we exclude others who do share these personal meanings.

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

That's the entire point sir.  We are incapable of anticipating meaningful and acceptable. What am I missing.  You've been married, you've tried to adequately communicate with your wife and it's worked all the time because you could discern meaningful and acceptable??  You've had a teenager and done the same with them?  I find it very difficult to communicate with you because you are not affirming my understanding.  Surely, you could have understood meaningful and acceptable with me?

[walterpthefirst]

7 hours ago, Edgarcito said:

That's the entire point sir.  We are incapable of anticipating meaningful and acceptable. What am I missing.  You've been married, you've tried to adequately communicate with your wife and it's worked all the time because you could discern meaningful and acceptable??  You've had a teenager and done the same with them?  I find it very difficult to communicate with you because you are not affirming my understanding.  Surely, you could have understood meaningful and acceptable with me?

 

Yes, we incapable of ANTICIPATING what is meaningful and acceptable to others, Edgarcito.

 

But your use of the future tense is the key here.

 

This thread is taking place in the Debate area of this forum.  Debate is not a matter of trying to anticipate what others might be thinking.  Instead its the ongoing, real time process of negotiating to discover what is acceptable and meaningful to all involved.  Negotiation requires listening, reflection, re-evaluation, compromise and the willingness to change your thinking.

 

That's what you're missing when you declare that we are incapable of doing this.

 

That declaration kills debate stone dead.  That declaration is tantamount to you saying, 'I'm not going to shift my position on this.'  That declaration is tantamount to you saying, 'I'm blocking my ears now so that I can't hear you.'  

 

In answer to your question, 'Surely, you could understand what is meaningful and acceptable to me?'...

 

My answer is yes, I can.  Provided that we are both willing to negotiate, listen, reflect, re-evaluate, compromise and change our thinking.

 

So, are you going to do these things with me or are you going to keep on killing the debate with declarations of 'It's undefinable!  It's impossible!  We're incapable!'?

 

 

Your call.

 

 

[TheRedneckProfessor]

14 hours ago, walterpthefirst said:

My subjective definitions are proper only to me and I cannot expect anyone else to share in them.

What is the difference, then, between a "definition" and a "description"?

[TheRedneckProfessor]

19 hours ago, alreadyGone said:

Funny you should use the color blue in this comment...

In the Russian language they have 14 different words to reference the color blue, depending on specific context.

I sometimes think having multiple words to represent a single concept actually limits the beauty and power of language.  Having more than a dozen words to choose from, one is likely to just pick the one closest in meaning and move on.  Bit having only the word "blue" to work with, one must use creativity and word craft, not to mention a wealth of adjectives, to truly convey the meaning intended.  As a shade tree writer wannabe, I try to use exact, yet memorable, language.

 

"Dark blue"

Versus

"A blue as deep as the coldest hour of your soul."

 

Language should be fun, as well as functional; and its limitations are opportunities. 

[walterpthefirst]

20 minutes ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

What is the difference, then, between a "definition" and a "description"?

 

What does it matter to you, Prof?  (Not trying to be combative here.)

 

So long as what is proper only to me works for me, then I have no need to use words to describe it and share it with anyone else.

 

As an Ex-Christian I think this is very similar to the situation with believers.

 

What they feel and experience is something that they cannot really share by language with anyone else.

 

That which is truly subjective cannot really be shared or described to others.

 

Therefore, I probably cannot use language to answer your question Prof.

 

It's proper only to me.

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

 

 

 

 

[TheRedneckProfessor]

2 minutes ago, walterpthefirst said:

 

What does it matter to you, Prof?  (Not trying to be combative here.)

 

So long as what is proper only to me works for me, then I have no need to use words to describe it and share it with anyone else.

 

As an Ex-Christian I think this is very similar to the situation with believers.

 

What they feel and experience is something that they cannot really share by language with anyone else.

 

That which is truly subjective cannot really be shared or described to others.

 

Therefore, I probably cannot use language to answer your question Prof.

 

It's proper only to me.

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

 

 

 

 

True in the sense that I can only begin to understand what you are first willing to share.  But, once shared, each word has a distinct meaning, a definition, used to effect my understanding of your experience.  The experience itself may be one I can only ever fully understand by undertaking it myself, much like a christian cannot understand deconversion.  In this instance, though, provided you measure your words against their definitions, you can convey a description adequate enough for me to empathize with the experience, if not fully understand. 

 

I don't think subjectivity precludes understanding entirely.  It may limit it; but I don't need to hike Mt. Everest to get a sense of the elation and enlightenment described by those who have. 

[walterpthefirst]

40 minutes ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

True in the sense that I can only begin to understand what you are first willing to share.  But, once shared, each word has a distinct meaning, a definition, used to effect my understanding of your experience.  The experience itself may be one I can only ever fully understand by undertaking it myself, much like a christian cannot understand deconversion.  In this instance, though, provided you measure your words against their definitions, you can convey a description adequate enough for me to empathize with the experience, if not fully understand. 

 

I don't think subjectivity precludes understanding entirely.  It may limit it; but I don't need to hike Mt. Everest to get a sense of the elation and enlightenment described by those who have. 

 

This is a post that deserves a considered answer.

 

I will think on what you say and get back to you Professor.

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.