Quote Originally Posted by Xaqaria View Post
Nobody said that religous people do not value language, math, etc. or even that religions don't. Remember that the first historians, scientists, etc. were all members of the clergy. What is being claimed is that 'spiritual science', or that which would lead one to a sense of spirituality and religious awe does not involve the same types of thought or even the same frames of awareness as what is used to study the physical world and what is tested in an I.Q. test.

You seem to have the tendency to reduce issues to the point of meaninglessness. A well rounded individual would have a strong ability for critical thought, and intuitive awareness. Religion or spirituality is just one aspect of a potentially healthy human being, and there is no need to define one's life by just one mode of thought.
That is unfortunate. I like to think I try to simplify things and then pursue their integrity.

I'm surprised you would question the study of spirituality based on the fact that one must assume it is already true before they can begin studying it. This is exactly the same for lucid dreaming. Perhaps we can see some sort of outward signs of awareness during sleep (ex. Laberge's eye movement experiments) but the only way to control one's dreams is to first take it on faith that it is indeed possible. What do you tell someone who questions whether it is possible to control one's dreams? Keep at it whole heartedly and eventually you will see for yourself.
Spirituality is not a known fact. The best we can argue is that known facts are based on dogmatic reasoning. But what other reasoning could we enforce to pursue the truth of the world around us? We must remove the illogical and uncertain things in order to pursue the rational.

Really, this is opening the doors to the debate about intelligence which does not really interest me at this time. The point is that, with what the WAIS does test, Atheists score higher. Whether or not that is of value to you, is up to you.

~