• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

What does it take

Twilight Hue

Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
Example from someone who speak with a spiritual master/teacher

I think in this day and age people look more for those who have a paper where it say PHd or Doctor then looking at what a person actually saying. Spiritual teachers do speak differently then those who have studied only text based scripture.
It kind of reminds me of the shift in Christians for example. There has been a notable shift to be referred to as 'Doctor' as of late, as opposed to 'Reverend' where one could distinguish between intelligence and spirituality. I don't know what created this sensitivity all the sudden where people want to equate intelligence with spirituality. It's analogous if you ask me.
 

Shantanu

Well-Known Member
It kind of reminds me of the shift in Christians for example. There has been a notable shift to be referred to as 'Doctor' as of late, as opposed to 'Reverend' where one could distinguish between intelligence and spirituality. I don't know what created this sensitivity all the sudden where people want to equate intelligence with spirituality. It's analogous if you ask me.
The whole purpose of spirituality is to derive superhuman intelligence.
 

Audie

Veteran Member
Lol funny! You have no idea of the extent of my education....a desire actually fostered by my affiliation with JW's.
Also, my experiences have led me to solid conclusions, experiences akin to Lincoln's ghost - Wikipedia
I'm just not as gullible as you....your faith -- and it is faith -- leads you to believe "pakicetus is the forerunner of whales!"

Solid conclusions, like those suddenly frozen
mammoths?

Best you be the one to say how solid your beliefs are
because nobody else will. :D

Oh and-
If ya is so eddycated, how comes ya dont know
that when giving the Latin name, the genus is
always capitalized?

And if you are educated in morality and ethics,
why do you not practice it, instead of making
up things to say against people you do not know?
 

Audie

Veteran Member
Really? What exactly did I make up?

Good that you sgreed with the rest of my post,
leaving only this one bit of befuddlement for me
to help you with.

I kind of thought it was the case that you do not
have the self awareness to tecognize the symptoms
when you are making something up.

If you like I can start bolding things you make up,
following your lead, where you put your fantasy
about faith in bold font.

Of course, I may betimes err, as when you quote what
someone made up for you.
 
Last edited:

sealchan

Well-Known Member
What does it take to be seen as a "educated" person within religion/spiritual life?
Can on only say that the person is educated if they have a masters degree or doctor degree in the field?
What about those who cultivate a religious path? One who live only for the spiritual advancements? is this person "educated" enough?

I think that Ken Wilbur may have laid out a case for a spiritual intelligence.
 

viole

Ontological Naturalist
Premium Member
What does it take to be seen as a "educated" person within religion/spiritual life?
Can on only say that the person is educated if they have a masters degree or doctor degree in the field?
What about those who cultivate a religious path? One who live only for the spiritual advancements? is this person "educated" enough?

Well, I am sure everybody can take a PhD in BS.
Biblical Scholarship, that is.

Ciao
- viole
 

blü 2

Veteran Member
Premium Member
What does it take to be seen as a "educated" person within religion/spiritual life?
Can on only say that the person is educated if they have a masters degree or doctor degree in the field?
What about those who cultivate a religious path? One who live only for the spiritual advancements? is this person "educated" enough?
Again you ask a penetrating question.

It seems to me that the difference between religion and materialism is the role of opinion as against the role of objective evidence, often enough an argument between 'ought' and 'is'.

To be sure, 'objectivity' is an aspiration, not an achievement, but it also seems to me that that science has addressed the problem with more awareness that it is a problem, hence more effectively, than any other mode of enquiry.

This is why I think 'truth' is conformity to / correspondence with / accurate reflection of objective reality (as we presently understand it). This results in an objective test (subject to the limitations I've mentioned, but as objective as we can make it) for what is true.

I don't know what test for 'truth' is used in religious discussions, but I suspect it's something along the lines of 'what my team teaches' ─ to which I might reply, 'Why does your team teach that and not something else?'

So I'm inclined to think that if you understand the outline of how science works, you're standing in the right place to deal with new information, which isn't an exact definition of 'educated' but isn't a bad approach. I suspect I'm saying that outlook is the key here, not just learning, but not without learning.

Whereas I may know the bible and the Qur'an and the Vedas and the Analects backwards, but have no way of telling ─ or perhaps, settling an argument, is a more accurate phrase ─ whether any of them is substantially correct and if so which.
 

Dan From Smithville

He who controls the spice controls the universe.
Staff member
Premium Member
Lol funny! You have no idea of the extent of my education....a desire actually fostered by my affiliation with JW's.
Also, my experiences have led me to solid conclusions, experiences akin to Lincoln's ghost - Wikipedia
I'm just not as gullible as you....your faith -- and it is faith -- leads you to believe "pakicetus is the forerunner of whales!"
Actually it is evidence and a logical theoretical basis that leads to the conclusion that Pakicetus is ancestral to modern whales. Faith is not required, since people of many faiths, or none at all, have come to the same logical conclusion upon critical review of the data.

Lincoln's ghost???
 

Audie

Veteran Member
Again you ask a penetrating question.

It seems to me that the difference between religion and materialism is the role of opinion as against the role of objective evidence, often enough an argument between 'ought' and 'is'.

To be sure, 'objectivity' is an aspiration, not an achievement, but it also seems to me that that science has addressed the problem with more awareness that it is a problem, hence more effectively, than any other mode of enquiry.

This is why I think 'truth' is conformity to / correspondence with / accurate reflection of objective reality (as we presently understand it). This results in an objective test (subject to the limitations I've mentioned, but as objective as we can make it) for what is true.

I don't know what test for 'truth' is used in religious discussions, but I suspect it's something along the lines of 'what my team teaches' ─ to which I might reply, 'Why does your team teach that and not something else?'

So I'm inclined to think that if you understand the outline of how science works, you're standing in the right place to deal with new information, which isn't an exact definition of 'educated' but isn't a bad approach. I suspect I'm saying that outlook is the key here, not just learning, but not without learning.

Whereas I may know the bible and the Qur'an and the Vedas and the Analects backwards, but have no way of telling ─ or perhaps, settling an argument, is a more accurate phrase ─ whether any of them is substantially correct and if so which.

Another way to look at the difference
( as per Feynman) is that science is a
culture of doubt, religion a culture of faith.

Science calls for, must have, doubt
and its goal of objectivity always in mind.
Objectivity is a highest value!

Religion does the opposite. Faith despite
any and all evidence. See "Job".

Or Dr. K Wise for an up to date example.
 

Audie

Veteran Member
Actually it is evidence and a logical theoretical basis that leads to the conclusion that Pakicetus is ancestral to modern whales. Faith is not required, since people of many faiths, or none at all, have come to the same logical conclusion upon critical review of the data.

Lincoln's ghost???

It seems the "faith" people cannot conceive of
how anyone's thinking could be fundamentally
different from theirs- so it must be that we too
just do faith, like them.

But also, unlike them, we are foolish and
inept, easily falling for any sort of silliness
that fits our world view.

That may be why I am so eager to believe
in flash frozen mammoths littering the
tundra as result of Noah's flood. :D
 

Windwalker

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Maybe besides IQ and EQ we need SQ?

e·mo·tion·al in·tel·li·gence
noun
noun: emotional intelligence
  1. the capacity to be aware of, control, and express one's emotions, and to handle interpersonal relationships judiciously and empathetically.
    "emotional intelligence is the key to both personal and professional success"
We already have that. It is known in developmentalist circles as Spiritual Intelligence (or SQ). From the Wiki article titled Spiritual Intelligence:

Definitions of spiritual intelligence rely on the concept of spirituality as being distinct from religiosity - existential intelligence.[9]

Danah Zohar defined 12 principles underlying spiritual intelligence:[10]

  1. Self-awareness: Knowing what I believe in and value, and what deeply motivates me.
  2. Spontaneity: Living in and being responsive to the moment.
  3. Being vision- and value-led: Acting from principles and deep beliefs, and living accordingly.
  4. Holism: Seeing larger patterns, relationships, and connections; having a sense of belonging.
  5. Compassion: Having the quality of "feeling-with" and deep empathy.
  6. Celebration of diversity: Valuing other people for their differences, not despite them.
  7. Field independence: Standing against the crowd and having one's own convictions.
  8. Humility: Having the sense of being a player in a larger drama, of one's true place in the world.
  9. Tendency to ask fundamental "Why?" questions: Needing to understand things and get to the bottom of them.
  10. Ability to reframe: Standing back from a situation or problem and seeing the bigger picture or wider context.
  11. Positive use of adversity: Learning and growing from mistakes, setbacks, and suffering.
  12. Sense of vocation: Feeling called upon to serve, to give something back.
Ken O'Donnell, advocates[11] the integration of spiritual intelligence (SQ) with both rational intelligence (IQ) and emotional intelligence (EQ). IQ helps us to interact with numbers, formulas and things, EQ helps us to interact with people and SQ helps us to maintain inner balance. To calculate one's level of SQ he suggests the following criteria:

  • How much time, money and energy and thoughts do we need to obtain a desired result.
  • How much bilateral respect there exists in our relationships.
  • How 'clean' a game we play with others.
  • How much dignity we retain in respecting the dignity of others.
  • How tranquil we remain in spite of the workload.
  • How sensible our decisions are.
  • How stable we remain in upsetting situations.
  • How easily we see virtues in others instead of defects.
Robert Emmons defines spiritual intelligence as "the adaptive use of spiritual information to facilitate everyday problem solving and goal attainment."[12] He originally proposed 5 components of spiritual intelligence:

  1. The capacity to transcend the physical and material.
  2. The ability to experience heightened states of consciousness.
  3. The ability to sanctify everyday experience.
  4. The ability to utilize spiritual resources to solve problems.
  5. The capacity to be virtuous.
  • Higher Level of Intelligence and self awareness.
  • Early Maturing
  • Control over emotions.
The fifth capacity was later removed due to its focus on human behavior rather than ability, thereby not meeting previously established scientific criteria for intelligence.

Frances Vaughan offers the following description: "Spiritual intelligence is concerned with the inner life of mind and spirit and its relationship to being in the world."[13]

Cindy Wigglesworth defines spiritual intelligence as "the ability to act with wisdom and compassion, while maintaining inner and outer peace, regardless of the circumstances."[14] She breaks down the competencies that comprise SQ into 21 skills, arranged into a four quadrant model similar to Daniel Goleman's widely used model of emotional intelligence or EQ. The four quadrants of spiritual intelligence are defined as:

  1. Higher Self / Ego self Awareness
  2. Universal Awareness
  3. Higher Self / Ego self Mastery
  4. Spiritual Presence / Social Mastery[14]
David B. King has undertaken research on spiritual intelligence at Trent University in Peterborough, Ontario, Canada. King defines spiritual intelligence as a set of adaptive mental capacities based on non-material and transcendent aspects of reality, specifically those that:

"...contribute to the awareness, integration, and adaptive application of the nonmaterial and transcendent aspects of one's existence, leading to such outcomes as deep existential reflection, enhancement of meaning, recognition of a transcendent self, and mastery of spiritual states."[15]

King further proposes four core abilities or capacities of spiritual intelligence:

  1. Critical Existential Thinking: The capacity to critically contemplate the nature of existence, reality, the universe, space, time, and other existential/metaphysical issues; also the capacity to contemplate non-existential issues in relation to one's existence (i.e., from an existential perspective).
  2. Personal Meaning Production: The ability to derive personal meaning and purpose from all physical and mental experiences, including the capacity to create and master a life purpose.
  3. Transcendental Awareness: The capacity to identify transcendent dimensions/patterns of the self (i.e., a transpersonal or transcendent self), of others, and of the physical world (e.g., nonmaterialism) during normal states of consciousness, accompanied by the capacity to identify their relationship to one's self and to the physical.
  4. Conscious State Expansion: The ability to enter and exit higher states of consciousness (e.g. pure consciousness, cosmic consciousness, unity, oneness) and other states of trance at one's own discretion (as in deep contemplation, meditation, prayer, etc.).[16]
Also, Vineeth V. Kumar and Manju Mehta have also researched the concept, extensively. Operationalizing the construct, they defined spiritual intelligence as "the capacity of an individual to possess a socially relevant purpose in life by understanding 'self' and having a high degree of conscience, compassion and commitment to human values."[17]
 

sealchan

Well-Known Member
I think that spiritual intelligence is fundamentally the measure of ones depth of self-awareness. Knowing one's self in a way in which others are illuminated. Removing the beam from one's own eye.

It is a uniquely psychological effort and one can identify stages of development in ones awareness.

One early stage is that of literal belief in supernatural powers. Any thought, person or event is potentially an encounter with the spiritual.

Then there is a level of principled belief. Simple moral rules are clung to as vital handholds on ones own value and worth.

Then there is a symbolic or metaphorical belief where one realizes that there is truth in spirituality but it is a matter of reading the message from the ritual or story.

At each level the previous levels are subsumed and reinterpreted. One still experiences the "lower" level within the "higher" level.

This is all distinct from having knowledge about religious traditions which might allow one to talk about beliefs on a logical or moral level. But one could also talk about life experience, personal meaning and wisdom and value.

The spiritually knowledgable individual finds themself less and less in conflict with others who are also knowledgable but who have different faiths.
 

Hockeycowboy

Witness for Jehovah
Premium Member
Good that you sgreed with the rest of my post,
leaving only this one bit of befuddlement for me
to help you with.

I kind of thought it was the case that you do not
have the self awareness to tecognize the symptoms
when you are making something up.

If you like I can start bolding things you make up,
following your lead, where you put your fantasy
about faith in bold font.

Of course, I may betimes err, as when you quote what
someone made up for you.
Why do you want to be nasty? I like you when you're nicer. You can be, I know.

I hope you have a good day, I really do.
 

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
What does it take to be seen as a "educated" person within religion/spiritual life?
Can on only say that the person is educated if they have a masters degree or doctor degree in the field?
What about those who cultivate a religious path? One who live only for the spiritual advancements? is this person "educated" enough?
I'm not sure if this is what you were thinking of, but your post reminded me of the Courtier's Reply:

The courtier's reply is a type of informal fallacy, coined by American biologist PZ Myers, in which a respondent to criticism claims that the critic lacks sufficient knowledge, credentials, or training to pose any sort of criticism whatsoever.[1] It may be considered a form of argument from authority.

A key element of a courtier's reply, which distinguishes it from an otherwise valid response that incidentally points out the critic's lack of established authority on the topic, is that the respondent never shows how the work of these overlooked experts invalidates the arguments that were advanced by the critic.
Courtier's reply - Wikipedia
 
Top