Why are so many people so bad?

[Oseas]

[QUOTE="durangodawood, post: 72015964, member: 200668"
Among those ideas is could well be "why?".
Why do seasons change and come back around in a circular fashion?
Why does lighting split the tree in half?
Why am I here?
And, finding a positive reasonable answer for every question, we project that sort of expectation onto nature, onto everything, resulting in questions like:
Why am I here?
Why is the world here?
etc.
So, I think thats the origin of the demand for meaning. We dont demand it because its actually out there (though it may well be). We demand it because we have the basic capacity to ask why. And a single unanswered "why?", when everything else seem to have an answer, is really unsettling.

Your conclusion may bring another questions:
Can that which is unsavoury be eaten without salt? or is there any taste in the white of an egg? Let cease you from man, whose breath is in his nostrils: for wherein is he to be accounted of ?
For the work of a man, shall God render unto him and cause every man to find according to his ways.

The eyes of God are upon the ways of man, and He sees all his goings, there is no darkness, nor shadow of death, where the workers of iniquity may hide themselves. He will not lay upon man more than right; that he should enter into judgment with God. Well, God will break in pieces mighty men without number, and set others in their stead, for He knows their works, and he overturnes them in the night, so that they are destroyed. He striks them as wicked men in the open sight of others, because they turned back from Him, and would not consider any of His ways:

In truth, the wicked walk on every side, when the vilest men are exalted, yes, it occurs when the vilest men are exalted. But upon the wicked, God shall rain snares, fire and brimstone, and an horrible tempest. this shall be the portion of their cup. The Lord loves the righteousness, The Lord loves the righteous, His countenance does behold the upright.

 

[durangodawood]

You're right, 'Belief in meaning as pointing towards the existence of meaning' vs 'Beings with higher levels of cognitive/curious traits that naturally results in thoughts about meaning' are great theories to pit against each other. At the end of the day I simply believe that every time this 'Meaning' trait of ours causes evolutionary theory to look like it has gone awry, that nudges me closer to siding with the 1st theory, that meaning is an actual thing. Now personally I don't think that the reverse would be true, that if something makes evolutionary sense it would drive me towards the 2nd theory (since evolution could be part of the stage among this grand play called human meaning).

The unanimity factor of the human obsession with meaning nudges me towards the 1st theory. This factor actually turns into a 2 part question. When a human sits on top of a cliff and stares at all the different species doing there thing, it's not just a 'Why?' question (about this existence up on this cliff) that's ingrained inside of the human mind, but it's also a 'Why am I the only species obsessed with asking Why?' that is strangely only a trait that we humans have. Unanimity in and of itself is evolutionarily strange to me. But the unanimity factor of curiosity driven invention is even more strange to me because it is absolutely crushing the 'Survival of the fittest' capabilities of so many non-human species, how many species will humans cause to go extinct before a 2nd species evolves with creative intelligence of their own in order to protect themselves from us? This monopoly we have on curious creative intelligence (which causes the byproduct of a belief in meaning) strikes me as not making any evolutionary sense. Other species should be competing. This is evolution flat out playing favorites.

This curiosity/meaning quirk also damages the literal mother nature that created us. Even prior to technology humans have done disastrous things to mother nature like relocate other species around the planet, totally disturbing natural predator/prey balances. Start opening the conversation up to human results of curiosity driven technology and the list goes on & on...we've damaged the ozone layer, we've dumped toxic waste all over the planet, we can now cause a nuclear holocaust on Mother Earth, etc. I think it would make more sense for mother nature to find a 'Better Solution' to deal with this psychopath species called humans, instead of just letting us run our course until we end our own existence (how about unleashing a much stronger Black Plaque on us? That would make sense to me as a smarter evolutionary solution). Actually I might take that back...I first believe that it would make more evolutionary sense for this disastrous 'Meaning' trait to never evolve in the first place.

I don't want to present straw man counter arguments (well, I'm more thinking out loud than arguing with you) but in my experience the counter often comes back that Earth doesn't care, that humans are a joke and the 4.5 billion year old Earth will just heal itself eventually. But I think this is like a person who likes to cut themselves as long as they don't cut too deep and cause fatal consequences (cutting yourself, a whacky behavior original to only humans). Wouldn't allowing the continued existence of humans actually be like mother nature cutting herself in a sense?

Now it is true that other organisms have wreaked havoc on mother nature (as opposed to respecting the parameters that Earth gave them to live in). But these are organisms that don't even register on the scale of cognitive self awareness. Very strange how the self destructive (towards) Earth trait completely skips over all organisms that are even remotely self aware, and lands right on us humans, the most self aware organisms that there are. It's a constant tugging on me that there is something 'Special' going on with our evolutionary status. I've said it before in here that I think it's strange that in biology class we are 99% identical to chimps, but in history class you feel like you should have your head examined if you think that humans are similar to chimps. Which implies to me that physiological similarity is drastically overrated.

Have u ever seen the very bizarre movie Clockwork Orange? If you have, they took a sick twisted violent criminal and they did an experiment on him. After the experiment he became extremely nauseous any time the urge to commit violence came upon him...he couldn't do it anymore. I think it would at least make more evolutionary sense for our curious/meaning trait to be accompanied by a much higher natural degree of disgust at the thought of harming the mother nature that provides for us.

Other species are so much better then humans with being innately knowledgeable about not destroying their natural habitat. The Clockwork Orange analogy, I think a toddler (if evolutionary survival instincts were the same for humans as other species) SHOULD not have an instinct to want to rip the family's garden apart if he is accidentally left inside of it. The child has just destroyed the family's food supply, that instinct makes no sense!! There should be a Clockwork Orange type of 'Bad' instinctive feelings about doing that.

Now, humans DO have the instincts to take care of their habitat to a certain extent, that is true, BUT the strength of such an instinct pales in comparison to other species. It seems to me like that's a major hint that our instincts are in PROPER proportion for caring more about meaning than for caring about habitat proliferation. After the infant phase, that toddler cares more about his toy then he even cares about eating dinner, and even if he didn't eat yet and is hungry he'll cry if you yank him away from the current 'Meaning' he has attached to that toy.

Our good traits are also bizarre, not just the bad. Things such as altruistic actions that not only do not benefit us, but actually hurt our survival situation.

I mean even if I threw the Bible out, and became skeptical & cynical about every faith, I still can see myself defaulting into the belief that humans are at least evolutionarily 'Special' in a bad way. That humans are the only species that we know of that ponders meaning is bizarre enough...but couple that with evolution playing favorites with the one and only species that ponders meaning and I think that puts us in a situation where something else is going on here...and IMO what's going on is that these are all clues that meaning is actually a true reality outside of chemical compositions of human brain matter.

Another well considered post.

I'd like to address everything in detail. But for now let me say a couple brief things.

It seems you have one basic misunderstanding about evolutionary biology. The theory does not propose that the genome gets optimized for things like care for habitat 100's of generations in the future. It just optimizes for survival of the organism through reproduction and child rearing. The theory certainly does not propose species genomes get optimized for bigger picture "earth goals" like healthy ecosystems. So far, healthy ecosystems have been a result, not a goal. So evolution doesnt propose there should be some "counterstrike" in the offing, like a plague. There's no global biospheric force looking out for its own bigger-picture interest.

When humans and our genome was "coming up" in the world, there was zero pressure on the genome to adapt to our own destruction of habitat. We could a. move somewhere else (there was plenty of room) or b. use our brainpower to devise fixes, like agriculture. Its only now, far down the road from the origin of human intelligence, that we a finally forced to reckon with its consequences.

As for unanimity. I agree. It feels strange. But rare things do happen. I could play the lottery everyday for thousand lifetimes and likely never win. But somebody wins sooner or later. And I do think one small change in the brain could have been the tipping point enabling the reflective-consciousness that opens the doors to everything we consider human in contrast to other animals.

 

[Rajni]

This is a serious question. Let's pretend, for the sake of this thread, that there is no spiritual realm and there was no Fall. What reason do people give for the abundance of bad people? Thieves, liars, sexual predators, murderers, etc. It's rife, and it's non-stop. In the absence of a spiritual realm, why are so many people so bad?

I don't know; what reason do people give for the abundance of good people? Volunteers, honest people, monogamists, doctors, EMTs, firefighters, Good Samaritans, etc. Also rife, and non-stop.

In the absence of the spiritual realm, both "good" and "bad" would be absent as well.

 

[Dirk1540]

Another well considered post.

I'd like to address everything in detail. But for now let me say a couple brief things.

It seems you have one basic misunderstanding about evolutionary biology. The theory does not propose that the genome gets optimized for things like care for habitat 100's of generations in the future. It just optimizes for survival of the organism through reproduction and child rearing. The theory certainly does not propose species genomes get optimized for bigger picture "earth goals" like healthy ecosystems. So far, healthy ecosystems have been a result, not a goal. So evolution doesnt propose there should be some "counterstrike" in the offing, like a plague. There's no global biospheric force looking out for its own bigger-picture interest.

When humans and our genome was "coming up" in the world, there was zero pressure on the genome to adapt to our own destruction of habitat. We could a. move somewhere else (there was plenty of room) or b. use our brainpower to devise fixes, like agriculture. Its only now, far down the road from the origin of human intelligence, that we a finally forced to reckon with its consequences.

As for unanimity. I agree. It feels strange. But rare things do happen. I could play the lottery everyday for thousand lifetimes and likely never win. But somebody wins sooner or later. And I do think one small change in the brain could have been the tipping point enabling the reflective-consciousness that opens the doors to everything we consider human in contrast to other animals.

It's true I do get rather loose in my use of the word evolution lol. Yeah I definitely think more in terms of bird's eye view more than under the microscope, I guess my main evolution confusion is that the other species aren't evolving to survive against man caused destruction of Earth...as for the total bizarreness of the man caused destruction and everything else I probably should use different terms than saying evolution over & over. I've even heard the theory that humans make SO little sense in this habitat that people think aliens dropped us off here lol.

 

[durangodawood]

It's true I do get rather loose in my use of the word evolution lol. Yeah I definitely think more in terms of bird's eye view more than under the microscope, I guess my main evolution confusion is that the other species aren't evolving to survive against man caused destruction of Earth...as for the total bizarreness of the man caused destruction and everything else I probably should use different terms than saying evolution over & over. I've even heard the theory that humans make SO little sense in this habitat that people think aliens dropped us off here lol.

Two thoughts:

1. The pace of change humans are inducing is simply too fast for most creatures to adapt to. The exceptions, of course, are creatures with super fast reproductive cycles. Mainly microorganisms.

2. The scale of change we induce is not comparable to anything historical except for true cataclysms. We can bulldoze a whole forest flat at will. This is not the sort of peril other creatures have faced before, having to deal with merely incremental evolution.

 

[Dirk1540]

Two thoughts:

1. The pace of change humans are inducing is simply too fast for most creatures to adapt to. The exceptions, of course, are creatures with super fast reproductive cycles. Mainly microorganisms.

2. The scale of change we induce is not comparable to anything historical except for true cataclysms. We can bulldoze a whole forest flat at will. This is not the sort of peril other creatures have faced before, having to deal with merely incremental evolution.

Are there examples in the theory when evolution really stomps down on the gas pedal? I'm pretty much thinking about the peppered moths during the industrial revolution, and finch beak sizes. Wondering if evolution would honor the 'Extreme situations require extreme measures' rule? Ok evolution doesn't care about 500 generations down the road, but since humans are such an immediate danger to so many species part of me thinks that evolution is about adapting...so why wouldn't evolution rules themselves adapt? Meaning the speed of evolution would need to adapt?

 

[durangodawood]

Are there examples in the theory when evolution really stomps down on the gas pedal? I'm pretty much thinking about the peppered moths during the industrial revolution, and finch beak sizes. Wondering if evolution would honor the 'Extreme situations require extreme measures' rule? Ok evolution doesn't care about 500 generations down the road, but since humans are such an immediate danger to so many species part of me thinks that evolution is about adapting...so why wouldn't evolution rules themselves adapt? Meaning the speed of evolution would need to adapt?

If you were designing the whole system, that might make sense, right?

 

[Dirk1540]

If you were designing the whole system, that might make sense, right?

Oh some things would look different if I was in charge!! For starters I would be Clark Kent in a world with no Kryptonite lol.

 

[Chesterton]

Then how else?

Simply based on whether it's good or bad. For example, if I tell you I'm thinking "I hate you", I hope you'd agree that that's a bad thought and not a good one, even though it has no practical effect.

Because it either benefits us or is to our detriment.

Is stealing bad or good? It works to the benefit of one and the detriment of another.

Events exist in reality. But we label our experience of those events as good or bad by how they affect us. Our labeling of those events is subjective with our own (or tribe) well-being as a frame of reference.

But if you hear a story of an event which occurs between two tribes, neither of which you have any relation to, you'll judge the event just the same, even though your tribe isn't affected.

How can an inanimate object be objectively bad? Sprouts are good for someone who likes them, bad for someone who doesn't and worse for someone who's allergic. In order to determine if something is bad one must first ask bad for who?

How can an event be objectively bad (in a purely physical realm)?

I'm still not following your argument of why this moral gold standard can exist in a spiritual realm but not in a physical one? Or indeed if it exists at all?

I'm just saying if it doesn't exist in a spiritual realm, then it cannot exist at all. It can't exist in a physical realm. Feelings about good and bad can exist in your brain, but they'd have to be considered delusions, since good and bad don't exist.

 

[Everybodyknows]

Simply based on whether it's good or bad.

That doesn't answer the question. You're just asserting that good and bad exist objectively without demonstrating that they do and how we go about determining them.

For example, if I tell you I'm thinking "I hate you", I hope you'd agree that that's a bad thought and not a good one, even though it has no practical effect.

No I don't necessarily agree that's a bad thought. If you told me you hate me I would ask why, there must be some reason for it. It's your actions that result from that thought that I would judge as bad.

Is stealing bad or good? It works to the benefit of one and the detriment of another.

You're approaching it in individualistic terms as though without an objective moral position this is the only alternative. When we are looking at a interdependent social species you can't view morality this way. Stealing is bad because it is to everybody's detriment if we allow stealing. A society without stealing is to everyone's benefit. Morality is a consensus position to maximise social benefit.

But if you hear a story of an event which occurs between two tribes, neither of which you have any relation to, you'll judge the event just the same, even though your tribe isn't affected.

That's because of empathy, the ability to hear that story and place myself in it. My judgements come from the hypothetical position of 'if it happened to me'. But I'm always judging through the prism of my own culture's morality. There is a limit to how useful this is and we have to acknowledge that different times and cultures had different moral values. E.g. Do we judge the Israelites for the Canaanite genocide in the same way as we judge genocide today

How can an event be objectively bad (in a purely physical realm)?

I'm not saying it can. You're the one arguing for an objective position.

I'm just saying if it doesn't exist in a spiritual realm, then it cannot exist at all. It can't exist in a physical realm. Feelings about good and bad can exist in your brain, but they'd have to be considered delusions, since good and bad don't exist.

If it can't exist in a physical realm why can it exist in a spiritual realm? What is different in this spiritual realm that allows good and bad to be determined objectively?

 

[Oseas]

Dirk1540 wrote in the post #84
>>>It's true I do get rather loose in my use of the word evolution lol. Yeah I definitely think more in terms of bird's eye view more than under the microscope, I guess my main evolution confusion is that the other species aren't evolving to survive against man caused destruction of Earth...as for the total bizarreness of the man caused destruction and everything else I probably should use different terms than saying evolution over & over<<<

Yes, no evolution, but total decadence, thefore, the mankind, wih exception the true Christians which walk in the light, it is in the same stage as it was in the beginning, and again the earth is without form and void, and darkness is upon of the whole Earth. Is there any thing whereof it may be said, See, this is new? it has been already of old time, which was before us.
But this generation, as natural brute beasts, made to be taken and destroyed, speak evil of the things that they understand not; and will utterly perish in their own corruption. If God spared not the angels that SINNED, yes, the ANGELS THAT SINNED, but cast them down to hell, and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment of this new millennium, the Millennium of Christ, and the Millennium of Judgment, the Judgment Seat of Christ, and spared not the OLD WORLD, but saved Noah the eighth person, a preacher of righteousness, bringing in the flood upon the world of the ungodly; And turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrha into ashes condemned them with an overthrow, making them an ensample unto those that after should live ungodly; And delivered just Lot, vexed with the filthy conversation of the wicked: Thus, the Lord knows how to deliver the godly out of temptations, and to reserve the unjust unto judgment to be punished, yea, punished with everlasting fire.

You wrote: >>> I've even heard the theory that humans make SO little sense in this habitat that people think aliens dropped us off here lol. <<<
So, let us cease from man whose breath is only in the nostrils: for wherein is we to be accounted of in this kind of earthly nature? By the way, the only aliens I have known are the angels send here by the Most High and Almighty God to do the works commanded by God, as it was in Sodom and Gomorrah, for example.

 

[quatona]

I'm just saying if it doesn't exist in a spiritual realm, then it cannot exist at all. It can't exist in a physical realm. Feelings about good and bad can exist in your brain, but they'd have to be considered delusions, since good and bad don't exist.

You mean, they don´t exist as anything but thoughts and feelings? Ok.
Personally, I don´t even expect them to be anything but thoughts and feelings. So "delusion" doesn´t seem to be the accurate adjective.
I am wondering why you wouldn´t accept thoughts and feelings to be this "spiritual realm" that you postulate them to exist in. IOW I am not sure what the difference between "they exist as thoughts and feelings" and "they exist in the spiritual realm" is supposed to be.

 

[Freodin]

You mean, they don´t exist as anything but thoughts and feelings? Ok.
Personally, I don´t even expect them to be anything but thoughts and feelings. So "delusion" doesn´t seem to be the accurate adjective.
I am wondering why you wouldn´t accept thoughts and feelings to be this "spiritual realm" that you postulate them to exist in. IOW I am not sure what the difference between "they exist as thoughts and feelings" and "they exist in the spiritual realm" is supposed to be.

I would very much like to know what "they exist in the spiritual realm" means at all.

If something exists, in whatever form, it should be possible to describe or explain it. This doesn't seem to apply to the "spiritial realm". This just seems to be a cheap excuse for everything that someone does not want to describe or explain.

 

[Oseas]

"Freodin, post:[/B] 72021689, member: 1363"]I would very much like to know what "they exist in the spiritual realm" means at all.
If something exists, in whatever form, it should be possible to describe or explain it. This doesn't seem to apply to the "spiritial realm". This just seems to be a cheap excuse for everything that someone does not want to describe or explain.[/QUOTE]

Now, now, how could the men describe or explain spiritual things if know not what is spirit? The Scripture says: God is Spirit. God is One, there is only One God. OK. But being invisible he is abstract, but when He shows Himself personally He is concrete and can be felt. So, what is Spirit?

ITOH there are many kinds spirits. How or which are their characteritics? What man knows the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knows no man, but the Spirit of God. Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? has not God made foolish the wisdom of this world? For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent.

 

[Chesterton]

That doesn't answer the question. You're just asserting that good and bad exist objectively without demonstrating that they do and how we go about determining them.

Yes it answers the question you asked.

No I don't necessarily agree that's a bad thought. If you told me you hate me I would ask why, there must be some reason for it. It's your actions that result from that thought that I would judge as bad.

We'll have to disagree on that. That seems odd coming from a Christian though.

You're approaching it in individualistic terms as though without an objective moral position this is the only alternative. When we are looking at a interdependent social species you can't view morality this way. Stealing is bad because it is to everybody's detriment if we allow stealing. A society without stealing is to everyone's benefit. Morality is a consensus position to maximise social benefit.

Of course I'm approaching it on individualistic terms. Those are the only terms.
A society is not an organism. It's just a word for individuals living in the same area. And I disagree that stealing is to everybody's detriment. It's only to the detriment of those who get stolen from.

That's because of empathy, the ability to hear that story and place myself in it. My judgements come from the hypothetical position of 'if it happened to me'. But I'm always judging through the prism of my own culture's morality. There is a limit to how useful this is and we have to acknowledge that different times and cultures had different moral values. E.g. Do we judge the Israelites for the Canaanite genocide in the same way as we judge genocide today

Referring to empathy makes no difference. You said "we label our experience of those events as good or bad by how they affect us". I'm trying to show they don't have to affect "us" in order to be labeled.

If it can't exist in a physical realm why can it exist in a spiritual realm? What is different in this spiritual realm that allows good and bad to be determined objectively?

God is the ground and basis of it all, and the nature of God is positive good. He's not neutral.

 

[Chesterton]

You mean, they don´t exist as anything but thoughts and feelings? Ok.
Personally, I don´t even expect them to be anything but thoughts and feelings. So "delusion" doesn´t seem to be the accurate adjective.

Then we'd agree on the first part, but I'd have to say they'd be delusional thoughts and feelings. If you're perceiving something as very real when it actually doesn't exist, I think it would be akin to feeling very certain that unicorns exist.

I am wondering why you wouldn´t accept thoughts and feelings to be this "spiritual realm" that you postulate them to exist in. IOW I am not sure what the difference between "they exist as thoughts and feelings" and "they exist in the spiritual realm" is supposed to be.

That may be a good point. There may not be a difference. Maybe thoughts and feelings are part of the spiritual realm.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Are there examples in the theory when evolution really stomps down on the gas pedal? I'm pretty much thinking about the peppered moths during the industrial revolution, and finch beak sizes. Wondering if evolution would honor the 'Extreme situations require extreme measures' rule? Ok evolution doesn't care about 500 generations down the road, but since humans are such an immediate danger to so many species part of me thinks that evolution is about adapting...so why wouldn't evolution rules themselves adapt? Meaning the speed of evolution would need to adapt?

You make evolution sound like some thinking/feeling being.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Then we'd agree on the first part, but I'd have to say they'd be delusional thoughts and feelings. If you're perceiving something as very real when it actually doesn't exist, I think it would be akin to feeling very certain that unicorns exist.

That may be a good point. There may not be a difference. Maybe thoughts and feelings are part of the spiritual realm.

If they are...it's odd they react so strongly to the physical world. It would seem they're a part of it.

 

[Everybodyknows]

Yes it answers the question you asked.

Not really. The question was how we judge good or bad apart from the effects.

It's not always true that we judge by the effects

Then how else?

Simply based on whether it's good or bad.

Saying just because it's good or bad doesn't really inform me of how we determine good or bad objectively. What is the gold standard and how do you apply it?

Of course I'm approaching it on individualistic terms. Those are the only terms.

Morality is not possible to define on purely individualistic terms.

A society is not an organism. It's just a word for individuals living in the same area.

No, it's much more than that. Society is a group living together in a network of interdependent relationships. Saying individualistic terms are the only terms is not only incorrect but a totally useless way of understanding a society.

And I disagree that stealing is to everybody's detriment. It's only to the detriment of those who get stolen from.

Would you agree that a society without stealing has greater total benefit than a society where stealing is permitted? Even if I never experience theft personally I still live in fear and anxiety knowing that anyone may steal from me at any time without consequence. I'm still experiencing a negative.

Referring to empathy makes no difference. You said "we label our experience of those events as good or bad by how they affect us". I'm trying to show they don't have to affect "us" in order to be labeled.

I said us or or our tribe, and all of humanity can be our tribe by extension. The point is that we judge good or bad by their effects on ourselves or others. Empathy is the vehicle through which we judge effects on others. When we label things that don't affect us directly we use the principle of 'if I was in that situation'. We don't need an objective definition of good or bad, we are only judging by the effects either directly on ourselves, or on others through empathy, from an internal reference point.

God is the ground and basis of it all, and the nature of God is positive good. He's not neutral.

Ok. If God is good how do we know and apply his standards of goodness to our lives?

 

[quatona]

Then we'd agree on the first part, but I'd have to say they'd be delusional thoughts and feelings. If you're perceiving something as very real when it actually doesn't exist, I think it would be akin to feeling very certain that unicorns exist.

Well, that would pose a problem to the "spiritual realm" as the significant source. Here I acknowledged the existence of a "spiritual realm" (e.g. our thoughts and feelings), and you respond in a way that implies that the content of the spiritual realm might not be "very real". So are you arguing for double-checking the accuracy of the "spiritual realm" by means of materialistic substantiation?

That may be a good point. There may not be a difference. Maybe thoughts and feelings are part of the spiritual realm.

I´m wondering how that rolls with the statement you made:
I'm just saying if it doesn't exist in a spiritual realm, then it cannot exist at all. It can't exist in a physical realm.
IOW: With the claim of the supremacy of the "spiritual realm" (thoughts and feelings) over the "physical realm", how do you arrive at the idea that "the spiritual realm" (thoughts and feelings) cannot "really exist"? You seem to hold the "spiritual realm" in high regards (as the source and prerequisite for acknowledging as something "existing"), and next you tell me that the "spiritual realm" (as in thoughts and feelings) isn´t all that reliable.