Freedom of Religion

[Abracadabra]

The critical error in your argument is that your spirituality should be the result of reality, not a way to fake it.

What you are arguing is that if a person can imagine the world in a particular way, then it is not unreasonable for him to believe in it under the guise of spirituality.

Even if that world cannot be shown to be true, even if the very possible existence of that world contradicts what we know, it is still okay to believe in it.

WHOA!

Where did I ever suggest any such nonsense? That's utter baloney.

You have totally misunderstood my position. I didn't mean that you should create a fantasy that flies in the face of what is already known to be true!

If I made a mistake it was the mistake of assuming that you'd already be at least that intelligent.

No, the fantasy you imagine for a spiritual world must at least be plausible with everything that you already know to be true. Absolutely!

I personally can create such an imagined spiritual world. If others have trouble doing that, I can only guess that they lack imagination.

As long as I can keep it plausible then it must necessarily remain within the world of possibility and that's all I require.

If I can imagine a plausible spiritual essence to reality, then it can't be ruled out. And that's sufficient grounds to believe that such a scenario is within the realm of possibility.

The mistake is, here you are telling someone that it is okay to hold two contradictory beliefs at the same time. That it is okay to believe that the world he imagined exists and at the same time, believe that its existence is impossible. Or even worse, that it is okay to let of of belief in the real world in favor of an imaginary one.

No, I've never told anyone any such thing. Where did you come up with that? Clearly you are jumping to grossly incorrect conclusions about my thoughts and position on things.

I said to be creative and imagine fantasies (but I confess I should have been more specific and said to imagine Plausible Fantasies.

I just assumed that intelligent people would know better than to imagine implausible fantasies.

Shame on me!

That is not spirituality. That is religion and there can be no more efficient way to murder a man's spirit than that.

Well I'm in total agreement with you on that taking into consideration your misunderstanding of what I was attempting to propose.

I guess I owe you an apology for not taking the time to be more clear about the fact that I was speaking of only 'plausible' fantasies.

I accept full responsibility for not being more clear. I just assumed that any intelligent person would know that an implausible fantasy would be a total waste of time.

Sorry for the assumption on my part.

I do sincerely apologize for that and wish I had been more clear from the outset. I thank you for bringing this to my attention. From here on out when I speak of imagining spiritual fantasies I'll be sure to include the adjective "plausible fantasies" to be crystal clear in what I'm attempting to convey.

So I do thank you very much for bringing this to my attention.

---

I would say

Spirituality is the ability to imagine beyond the restrictions of reason

Would have been the spot to point out. It's where the last shreds of credibility dumped out of the conversation for me.

Well, again, I confess that I'm a sloppy writer, and I assume far too much of my readers.

What I was thinking in my mind when I wrote that was actually Quantum Physics. In other words when we look at the behavior of the Quantum World we see behavior that is indeed "unreasonable" to us.

No one to date has been able to make "reasonable sense" of the quantum world.

So when I'm speaking about going beyond the restrictions of "reason" I'm speaking within this context.

In other words, in the quantum world there can be "spooky action at a distance". Or instantaneous "complementarity" at a distance if you prefer.

But however you label it, it goes beyond anything that we deem to be "reasonable" yet it's a scientifically observed fact that it occurs.

Well, gee whiz, if we have already established via science that the true nature of reality can indeed exhibit "unreasonable" behavior, then why should we restrict the behavior of a spiritual world to be any more 'reasonable' than that?

So again, sloppy communication on my part, but the things I'm proposing are all at least as sound as what we already scientifically know about the true nature of reality (which isn't a whole lot actually)

Once you move into a spiritual world completely you certainly would no longer be restricted by the physics of spacetime.

That should be a given!

So YES, we should expect a spiritual world to be "unreasonable" in terms of spacetime physics. Absolutely. That's the whole idea of what a spiritual world should be.

If you had to restrict it to only what is 'reasonable' within a physical spacetime universe, then it would hardly be a 'spiritual world'.

You'd just be forcing yourself back into a secular (almost Newtonian) box.

[genkaus]

Where did I ever suggest any such nonsense? That's utter baloney.

You have totally misunderstood my position. I didn't mean that you should create a fantasy that flies in the face of what is already known to be true!

If I made a mistake it was the mistake of assuming that you'd already be at least that intelligent.

No, the fantasy you imagine for a spiritual world must at least be plausible with everything that you already know to be true. Absolutely!

I personally can create such an imagined spiritual world. If others have trouble doing that, I can only guess that they lack imagination.

As long as I can keep it plausible then it must necessarily remain within the world of possibility and that's all I require.

If I can imagine a plausible spiritual essence to reality, then it can't be ruled out. And that's sufficient grounds to believe that such a scenario is within the realm of possibility.

You said - "Spirituality is the ability to imagine beyond the restrictions of reason."

If your "spiritual world" is required to be plausible according to reality, then it is not beyond the restrictions of reason. If it is beyond restrictions of reason, then there is nothing preventing it from being implausible. Make up your mind. You cannot have it both ways.

No, I've never told anyone any such thing. Where did you come up with that? Clearly you are jumping to grossly incorrect conclusions about my thoughts and position on things.

I said to be creative and imagine fantasies (but I confess I should have been more specific and said to imagine Plausible Fantasies.

I just assumed that intelligent people would know better than to imagine implausible fantasies.

Shame on me!

Your formulation of "spiritual essence" of reality is not only implausible but illogical. According to you, it might be independent of any physical constraint. That is illogical. Nothing that exists can be independent of physical existence.

Which is why assumed that you are okay with people believing in implausible fantasies.

[Abracadabra]

You said - "Spirituality is the ability to imagine beyond the restrictions of reason."

If your "spiritual world" is required to be plausible according to reality, then it is not beyond the restrictions of reason. If it is beyond restrictions of reason, then there is nothing preventing it from being implausible. Make up your mind. You cannot have it both ways.

Sure I can.

What are you calling reality?

Can you explain the unreasonable behavior observed in the quantum world?

Here's what the Nobel Prize-winning physicist on Quantum Mechanics has to say about it.

"Do not keep saying to yourself, if you can possibly avoid it, 'How can it be like that?' because you will go 'down the drain', into a blind alley from which nobody has yet escaped." - Richard Feynman

It's totally unreasonable, and no one has been able to give a reasonable explanation for it yet. As far as we know, the true nature of reality is totally beyond anything that we might consider to be "reasonable".

So where do you get off demanding that reality must be "reasonable"?

Where is it written in the stars that the true nature of reality must be "reasonable" in terms of human comprehension?

Your formulation of "spiritual essence" of reality is not only implausible but illogical. According to you, it might be independent of any physical constraint. That is illogical. Nothing that exists can be independent of physical existence.

Do you have a proof of that?

If you do, I suggest that you present it to the scientific community ASAP, you will definitely be world-famous instantly.

Which is why assumed that you are okay with people believing in implausible fantasies.

Evidently we just disagree on what we consider to be "plausible".

As far as I'm concerned you're putting demands and restrictions on the true nature of reality that simply haven't been established. That's just wishful thinking on your part.

[genkaus]

Sure I can.
What are you calling reality?

State of things as they exist.

Can you explain the unreasonable behavior observed in the quantum world?

Why would they be unreasonable. Just because we don't understand the reason yet does not mean they are unreasonable.

Here's what the Nobel Prize-winning physicist on Quantum Mechanics has to say about it.

"Do not keep saying to yourself, if you can possibly avoid it, 'How can it be like that?' because you will go 'down the drain', into a blind alley from which nobody has yet escaped." - Richard Feynman

How is that relevant?

It's totally unreasonable, and no one has been able to give a reasonable explanation for it yet.

You contradict yourself. If it is unreasonable, then there wouldn't be a reasonable explanation.

As far as we know, the true nature of reality is totally beyond anything that we might consider to be "reasonable".

Thankfully, what is reasonable and what we consider to be reasonable may be two different things.

So where do you get off demanding that reality must be "reasonable"?

Where is it written in the stars that the true nature of reality must be "reasonable" in terms of human comprehension?

That reality is reasonable is tautologically true. Reality cannot be anything other that rational. That humans have been able to grasp at a potion of that reason, happens to be true. Excuse me if I don't let go of the portion we have grasped in response to the knowledge of the portion we have not grasped yet.

Do you have a proof of that?

If you do, I suggest that you present it to the scientific community ASAP, you will definitely be world-famous instantly.

They all know it already. The proof is in the meaning of the words.

Evidently we just disagree on what we consider to be "plausible".

As far as I'm concerned you're putting demands and restrictions on the true nature of reality that simply haven't been established. That's just wishful thinking on your part.

First of all, "true nature of reality" is redundant. Truth is what corresponds to reality and therefore nature of reality is automatically true.

Secondly, demands or restriction upon reality cannot be established, they can only be identified. One such identification is that reality cannot be irrational. Therefore, anything beyond the restrictions of reason is automatically implausible.

[Abracadabra]

That reality is reasonable is tautologically true. Reality cannot be anything other that rational. That humans have been able to grasp at a potion of that reason, happens to be true. Excuse me if I don't let go of the portion we have grasped in response to the knowledge of the portion we have not grasped yet.

You sound like a philosopher.

Your statement above (as well as basically all your points in your post), are standing on very thin semantic ice.

You say, "That reality is reasonable is tautologically true. Reality cannot be anything other that rational."

But can you prove this statement? I don't believe so. In fact, I know you can't prove it within the scope of our current knowledge. Other than to play semantic games.

What do you mean by "rational"?

If you mean that a human mind should be able to intellectually comprehend the true nature of reality. Then what is your basis for claiming that Reality cannot be anything other than rational?

How could you possibly know that every aspect of reality must be comprehensible to a human mind? Where has that ever been established to be guaranteed?

You're just spewing personal opinions and claiming that they are "tautologies" when you cannot possible support those claims.

There is absolutely no reason whatsoever why reality cannot be anything other than rational.

What does it even mean to be rational?

All that we mean by 'rational' is that we can make sense of it with our human mind. We already know of things that we can't rationalize. That was my point about the quantum world. We already have examples of nature that we have not been able to rationalize, and we man never be able to rationalize them. To believe that we might same day find a rational explanation is itself nothing more than a faith-based hope.

You're just making outrageous claims that have no support.

Where do you get off saying that it's a tautology that reality must be "reasonable"? And what does "reasonable" even mean?

It a human mind cannot comprehend it, then it most certainly can't be said to be "reasonable" to the human mind.

Moreover, based on your wild unbounded claim "That reality is reasonable is tautologically true", then if spirituality turns out to be the true nature of reality then spirituality must be reasonable. (ha ha)

So big deal.

All you've succeeded in doing is creating a totally redundant definition for the term "reasonable".

Semantic word games. Nothing more.

---

That reality is reasonable is tautologically true.

Actually, thinking about this further, this is absolutely bounded to semantics.

In the days of Classical Physics, it was considered "reasonable" that Time and Space were separate things. It was considered totally "unreasonable" that time could dilate or be different for different observers.

Einstein come along, all of a sudden it's "reasonable" to think of space and time as a single fabric of space time that can bend and warp both in space and time.

We don't even have a absolute notion of what "reasonable" even means. These terms themselves are malleable and relative.

This same sort of thing happened as we progressed through are discover of quantum mechanics as well.

On very notion of what is 'reasonable' is itself a relativistic notion.

So the idea that "Reality is reasonable is a tautology" is an utterly meaningless gibberish.

The very concept of "reason" is not carved in stone or absolute. We simple change our minds on what we consider to be "reasonable" all the time.

So to say that "Reality is reasonable is a tautology" is a totally meaningless play on words that has absolutely no value in science or philosophy. It's a totally meaningless statement truly, because the very concept of what we deem to be 'reasonable' is a malleable concept to begin with.

[genkaus]

You sound like a philosopher.

Thank you.

Your statement above (as well as basically all your points in your post), are standing on very thin semantic ice.

Semantics, meaning the study of meaning, i.e. the study pf relation between words and the concepts they identify or represent.

What I'm pointing out is that when you misuse the word, you corrupt the concept it represents. Subvert the meaning well enough and you can play deuces wild with the concepts an represent the irrational as rational. However, once such a mistake or intellectual dishonesty (whichever may be the case with you) is discovered, no further refutation is required.

You say, "That reality is reasonable is tautologically true. Reality cannot be anything other that rational."

But can you prove this statement? I don't believe so. In fact, I know you can't prove it within the scope of our current knowledge. Other than to play semantic games.

No proof is required if the concept you present is self-refuting.

Reason or rationality is the human capacity to make sense of facts, i.e identify and understand reality. Without that capacity, neither knowledge nor proof is possible. The statement "reality is irrational" is a statement of knowledge. It cannot be made unless knowledge is possible, which requires reality to be rational. Therefore, it is a self-refuting statement.

What do you mean by "rational"?

If you mean that a human mind should be able to intellectually comprehend the true nature of reality. Then what is your basis for claiming that Reality cannot be anything other than rational?

Like I said before "true nature of reality" is redundant. The nature of reality cannot be anything other than true.

If a human mind cannot comprehend the nature of reality, then it is incapable of reason. No knowledge is possible in that case and any statement of knowledge, including "human mind cannot comprehend reality", becomes meaningless.

How could you possibly know that every aspect of reality must be comprehensible to a human mind? Where has that ever been established to be guaranteed?

Unnecessary. Comprehension of some aspects of reality is all that is required to develop reason.

You're just spewing personal opinions and claiming that they are "tautologies" when you cannot possible support those claims.

Except those "personal opinions" are facts upon which the very existence of human knowledge relies.

There is absolutely no reason whatsoever why reality cannot be anything other than rational.

Except for the very existence of reason itself.

What does it even mean to be rational?

All that we mean by 'rational' is that we can make sense of it with our human mind. We already know of things that we can't rationalize. That was my point about the quantum world. We already have examples of nature that we have not been able to rationalize, and we man never be able to rationalize them. To believe that we might same day find a rational explanation is itself nothing more than a faith-based hope.

Your point was that if something has not been rationalized yet (i.e. we haven't made sense of it yet), it is okay to imagine an explanation, believe it to be true and claim it to be knowledge. Upto and perhaps including the point where it contradicts what we have already made sense of. That is knowledge without reason, by definition irrational.

You're just making outrageous claims that have no support.

Much better than making outrageous claim while decrying support.

Where do you get off saying that it's a tautology that reality must be "reasonable"? And what does "reasonable" even mean?

It a human mind cannot comprehend it, then it most certainly can't be said to be "reasonable" to the human mind.

If human mind cannot comprehend reality, then any and all statements of knowledge are meaningless, including "human mind cannot comprehend reality".

Moreover, based on your wild unbounded claim "That reality is reasonable is tautologically true", then if spirituality turns out to be the true nature of reality then spirituality must be reasonable. (ha ha)

So big deal.

All you've succeeded in doing is creating a totally redundant definition for the term "reasonable".

Semantic word games. Nothing more.

IF it turns out that there is a spiritual aspect to reality, it will not be as you defined it. Because as you defined it, it is irrational.

Actually, thinking about this further, this is absolutely bounded to semantics.

In the days of Classical Physics, it was considered "reasonable" that Time and Space were separate things. It was considered totally "unreasonable" that time could dilate or be different for different observers.

Einstein come along, all of a sudden it's "reasonable" to think of space and time as a single fabric of space time that can bend and warp both in space and time.

We don't even have a absolute notion of what "reasonable" even means. These terms themselves are malleable and relative.

This same sort of thing happened as we progressed through are discover of quantum mechanics as well.

On very notion of what is 'reasonable' is itself a relativistic notion.

No, "reasonable" still means the same thing - a way to understand reality.

So the idea that "Reality is reasonable is a tautology" is an utterly meaningless gibberish.

To you? Definitely. You seem unable to understand the very foundations of human knowledge.

The very concept of "reason" is not carved in stone or absolute. We simple change our minds on what we consider to be "reasonable" all the time.

We only consider things that make sense to be reasonable. That hasn't changed.

So to say that "Reality is reasonable is a tautology" is a totally meaningless play on words that has absolutely no value in science or philosophy. It's a totally meaningless statement truly, because the very concept of what we deem to be 'reasonable' is a malleable concept to begin with.

That statement happens to be something science and philosophy are based on.

Unless reality is reasonable, no statement of knowledge can be made. In which case, neither science nor philosophy can be valid.

[Abracadabra]

You sound like a philosopher.

Thank you.

No need to thank me. I tend to view philosophers much like Richard Feynman.

"We can't define anything precisely. If we attempt to, we get into that paralysis of thought that comes to philosophers… one saying to the other: "you don't know what you are talking about!". The second one says: "what do you mean by talking? What do you mean by you? What do you mean by know?" - Richard Feynman

No offense intended, but every time I meet someone who claims to be a philosopher I never hear anything but this kind of gibberish coming from them. Like Feynman points out, they end up getting lost in arguments over semantics to such an absurd degree that it truly becomes paralysis of thought.

I have no interest in going there. I read over the rest of your post, and as far as I can see that's precisely where you're headed.

So thanks, but no thanks. I'm not interested in getting into endless fruitless arguments over semantics. It's just not my cup of tea.

[genkaus]

No need to thank me. I tend to view philosophers much like Richard Feynman.

"We can't define anything precisely. If we attempt to, we get into that paralysis of thought that comes to philosophers… one saying to the other: "you don't know what you are talking about!". The second one says: "what do you mean by talking? What do you mean by you? What do you mean by know?" - Richard Feynman

No offense intended, but every time I meet someone who claims to be a philosopher I never hear anything but this kind of gibberish coming from them. Like Feynman points out, they end up getting lost in arguments over semantics to such an absurd degree that it truly becomes paralysis of thought.

Unfortunately, that is the state of most of philosophy. A lot of pseudo-scientific, semi-religious intellectual sounding crap that means little. Sort of the bullshit you were spouting about the "spiritual essence of reality" and how, somehow, "quantum mechanics gives you permission to believe that".

Fortunately. I'm not a philosopher. I don't get lost in semantics, I clarify them . If the meaning or usage of a word seems suspect, I look it up, thereby avoiding any thought paralysis. If the words in an argument are used wrongly, I point it out and the whole argument automatically falls apart.

I have no interest in going there. I read over the rest of your post, and as far as I can see that's precisely where you're headed.

So thanks, but no thanks. I'm not interested in getting into endless fruitless arguments over semantics. It's just not my cup of tea.

I didn't think it was. You like to use words without regard for their meaning or their referents. Similarly, you like to use concepts and arguments without regard or knowledge of their underlying premises. Clearly, you'd be uncomfortable if the words and concepts are discussed with their actual meaning.

[Epimethean]

I love it when a dude who believes in witchcraft accuses someone of not making sense.

Priceless.

[Rusko]

*reads title*
*finishes the sentence* :
should be removed.