What does it take

[Dan From Smithville]

Data on Pakicetus?

There's not much evidence. An ear bone?
Sorry, but it's faith-based.

Provide more of the evidence, please.

Would you read it? Would you understand it? Neither from what I have seen.

You have access to the same data that I do. I cannot make you stop denying it on ideological grounds.

No, faith is still not required.

So you are a JW? How has an organization that actively discourages education inspired you to further yours? What is it in?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

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.

My interpretation of faith and how I direct and apply it is markedly different than much of what see here. It seems others are directing theirs to styles of interpretation rather than a deity or positive messages attributed to that deity. I was not raised to view Christianity as a doomsday cult where I sit waiting for the end while flaunting my assumed spiritual superiority in the face of others.

A lot of theists behave as the Wise one, but I see no benefit from a dead end approach like that. A little doubt is necessary as a mechanism to drive learning and discovery. Even in religion. Those that pretend to know everything never learn.

 

[wandering peacefully]

Study much and talk less.

It really is astonishing the available learning tools on the Internet. Even MIT has open course ware online!

 

[Dan From Smithville]

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.

I agree. They lack an ability to understand different perspectives. Or that there can be and are different perspectives that are often more complex than simpled assured perspective that provides easy answers they want to hear. Math is hard.

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

Dang straight. Loves me some silly answers I do not have to think much about.

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

You too. Awesome. Inexplicable flash freezing following a global flood makes perfect sense. Especially when it is an explanation full of holes and when you dig deeper, has no supporting evidence except that somebody found a rotten mammoth carcass frozen where it gets really cold.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Study much and talk less.

It really is astonishing the available learning tools on the Internet. Even MIT has open course ware online!

I have taken advantage of some of those that are freely available to review and update courses I took years ago, as well as some that were in eras new to me. Academic Earth is great source for courses taught at major universities. AcademicEarth.org - Free Online Courses From Top Colleges

 

[Audie]

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.

I know. Girls are supposed to be sweet,
nice nice nice. Never aggressive or blunt
and never ever dare to know more than the guys.

You? You can make up any nonsense you like and
if I mention it? Must be something wrong,
emotionally outta whack. Monthlies maybe.

Men.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I know. Girls are supposed to be sweet,
nice nice nice. Never aggressive or blunt
and never ever dare to know more than the guys.

You? You can make up any nonsense you like and
if I mention it? Must be something wrong,
emotionally outta whack. Monthlies maybe.

Men.

Yeah. What do Grace Hopper, Barbara McClintock, Rosaland Franklin, Lynn Margulis, Marie Currie, or Mary Schweitzer know about science anyway. Women.

 

[Aupmanyav]

What about those who cultivate a religious path? One who live only for the spiritual advancements? is this person "educated" enough?

IMHO, that also takes a lot of education. Not necessarily of the college type, but education is a must.

 

[blü 2]

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.

Danah Zohar defined 12 principles underlying spiritual intelligence:
[Self-awareness: Spontaneity: Living in the moment. Being vision- and value-led: Acting from principles and deep beliefs.Holism: Compassion: Celebration of diversity: Field independence: Humility: Tendency to ask fundamental "Why?" questions: Ability to reframe: Positive use of adversity: Sense of vocation]

This would result in 'spirituality' being defined by the possession of those dozen qualities, which I think is arbitrary and baseless as a claim.

Instead we need someone to set out a definition of 'spirituality' such that we can test whether any of the listed qualities is relevant to it. Without such a definition, the conversation has no intellectual place to stand.

(And greetings, before I forget!)

 

[PureX]

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?

It appears to me that anyone who articulates and/or defends what we have already chosen to believe spiritually, we will consider to be an "educated" spiritualist. In other words, confirmation bias is the most prevalent criteria being applied by most people.

 

[Windwalker]

This would result in 'spirituality' being defined by the possession of those dozen qualities, which I think is arbitrary and baseless as a claim.

As someone who experiences those qualities, they are not "baseless". These are things that researchers can observe and map out across a spectrum of individuals. There is quite a lot of existing data and research that can be investigated. What is baseless, is to just dismiss it because you think that it just can't be real, despite the existing data.

Instead we need someone to set out a definition of 'spirituality' such that we can test whether any of the listed qualities is relevant to it.

These are qualities of lived experience, and you have a list of the types of categories already here, for one. And the "testing" is really as simple as this. "Does the subject exhibit any of these qualities, and to what degree?" The answer to your request has already been fulfilled.

Think of this like taking an MMPI, which is a list of 500 questions that is used to map up personality traits. It's the same thing. The qualities that define generally what is considered spirituality, are qualitatively different than other areas, and they are seen to exist in individuals, hence why such lists are compiled.

Without such a definition, the conversation has no intellectual place to stand.

Saying what research is being done is "baseless", has no intellectual place to stand.

(And greetings, before I forget!)

Likewise. I enjoy our occasional encounters like this.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

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?

In my own personal experience, it takes an education in a Yeshiva to gain a moderate fluency in Talmud. I for example, am not considered educated in Judaism. Not that I've never opened a Talmud. But when I was Orthodox it was discouraged, and at my present synagogue they simply don't have classes. As a woman, my "educational emphasis" was more around how to create a kosher and hospitable home. I don't mind that at all. Judaism is a religion of orthopraxy (right action) and THAT is what I have learned. It doesn't do a lot of good to be able to parse the Talmud if you don't know how to be shomer Shabbat or keep kosher. Anyone want to come over for Shabbat Table?