# Is acknowledgement of a spirit reasonable? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [November 13, 2008, 2:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-acknowledgement-of-a-spirit-reasonable/472529 "2008-11-13T14:20:24Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 8
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [November 24, 2008, 8:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-acknowledgement-of-a-spirit-reasonable/472529/141 "2008-11-24T20:25:52Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > So you’re happy to think that spirits exist when nothing in the universe suggests that it’s so? My experience suggests to me that it’s so. However, I can understand why your experience suggests to you otherwise. > [@](#): > > Doesn’t the concept of a spirit sound like something a primitive man would think of? Like the idea that there is water behind the dome of the sky or that humans were crafted from clay? Primitive people believe things that seem logical to them given what they know. Respectfully, I disagree. Primitive people had seen both water and clay; that is, they had had experiences in which water and clay had become manifest for them. Conceiving these as integral to mechanisms they did not understand seems reasonable. But I don’t know of anything more intellectually challenging than conceiving something outside of one’s life experience — something one has never known or heard of. If anything, your premise is as suitable to arguing for a spirit they had experience of as it would be to argue against it. > [@](#): > > A person can die without his body looking any different, so it’s logical to think that a spirit, the thing that animated him left. We know that when people die, it’s because a system in their body has broken down. Something breaks and a cascade of failures happen until the body as a whole stops working. From the point of view of our knowledge, nothing has to leave. So why assume that something does? I agree with you there. No such presumption should be made a priori. It is only if one reasonably believes that something was there in the first place that it makes sense to believe it might have left. That said, I wouldn’t base my strongest case, if I were you, on what I see. Optical illusions abound, both in nature and in human lore and culture. > [@](#): > > Just because an idea (the spirit or the existence of god) has a long pedigree doesn’t mean it’s worth anything. Spirits are a comforting idea, but living in ignorance and denial of reality because it’s comforting isn’t IMHO a good way to face the world. I’m not sure spirits are always a comforting idea. There are concepts of spirits as everything from mischevious to evil. I think ethical considerations, like morality, are a separate issue from metaphysical considerations, like existence. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [November 24, 2008, 8:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-acknowledgement-of-a-spirit-reasonable/472529/142 "2008-11-24T20:29:49Z")
> [@RaftPeople](#): > > Our “discovery” of natural selection is merely an assignment of an idea and words by humans to patterns of events that occur in the universe, much like our process of naming rivers. > > It’s an idea, nothing more. If your position is that the spirit is an idea then we are in agreement. If you agree that (A) natural selection is both (1) an idea conceived by man and (2) an actual thing that exists independently of man, then we agree on that. Where we disagree, as I see it, is in whether to acknowledge the same sort of identifier-identity duality with respect to spirit. For it, you see only (1) and I see both (1) and (2). Natural selection would be a real, actual mechanism whether or not we ever discovered it. ---
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [November 24, 2008, 8:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-acknowledgement-of-a-spirit-reasonable/472529/143 "2008-11-24T20:32:51Z")
> [@Liberal](#): > > I’m not sure spirits are always a comforting idea. There are concepts of spirits as everything from mischevious to evil. I think ethical considerations, like morality, are a separate issue from metaphysical considerations, like existence. I was thinking they were comforting specifically because they lend to the notion that we don’t end at death. People really want to transcend death and see dead loved ones again. That alone is a huge impetus to believe, because it has such massive payoff in peace of mind. It’s because it’s so seductive that it should be held to a reasonable standard of evidence. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [November 24, 2008, 8:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-acknowledgement-of-a-spirit-reasonable/472529/144 "2008-11-24T20:39:44Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > I was thinking they were comforting specifically because they lend to the notion that we don’t end at death. People really want to transcend death and see dead loved ones again. That alone is a huge impetus to believe, because it has such massive payoff in peace of mind. > > It’s because it’s so seductive that it should be held to a reasonable standard of evidence. And yet, there are also beliefs that a person can be eternally separated from those he loves — even from God Himself. What comfort or seduction lies in those? ---
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [November 24, 2008, 8:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-acknowledgement-of-a-spirit-reasonable/472529/145 "2008-11-24T20:49:14Z")
> [@Liberal](#): > > And yet, there are also beliefs that a person can be eternally separated from those he loves — even from God Himself. What comfort or seduction lies in those? No one thinks _they’re_ going to hell. Toeing the ecclesiastical line is reinforced by a spiritual pat on the head. People feel like they’re working hard (obeying the commandments, going to church, whatever) and getting a reward they deserve. And if they don’t follow the rules they think that god will understand their travails, or that after the hail Marys they’re in the clear. The average Christian \*assumes \*they’re going to go to heaven. ---
**Author:** ![hotflungwok](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/edb3f5/32.png) [@hotflungwok](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/hotflungwok)\ **Post date:** [November 24, 2008, 8:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-acknowledgement-of-a-spirit-reasonable/472529/146 "2008-11-24T20:55:21Z")
> [@Liberal](#): > > My experience suggests to me that it’s so. However, I can understand why your experience suggests to you otherwise. Wait, that’s it? That’s your big evidence? You had an experience? I’m not even going to bother pointing out what science thinks of personal experience, you probably already know it. All the stuff we have against spirits: no agreed on definition, common definitions that break laws of physics, medical science rendering necessity of animating spirit in humans moot, centuries of ghosts and poltergeists and other reports of spirits and not a single verified instance, etc, all this, and you’re going to go with your experience? Why is your experience a better indicator than what all the rest of humanity has managed to (not) find? ---
**Author:** ![RaftPeople](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/6f9a4e/32.png) [@RaftPeople](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RaftPeople)\ **Post date:** [November 24, 2008, 9:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-acknowledgement-of-a-spirit-reasonable/472529/147 "2008-11-24T21:00:44Z")
> [@Liberal](#): > > If you agree that (A) natural selection is both (1) an idea conceived by man and (2) an actual thing that exists independently of man, then we agree on that. Where we disagree, as I see it, is in whether to acknowledge the same sort of identifier-identity duality with respect to spirit. For it, you see only (1) and I see both (1) and (2). > > Natural selection would be a real, actual mechanism whether or not we ever discovered it. I agree that the pattern of events we call natural selection do occur and are related in the way we think they are, but it’s still a pattern which is an abstract notion just like a flower arrangement. I think the underlying components exist independently of man and you could probably say the patterns exist (whether natural selection or flower arrangement), but a pattern is merely a description of something that happened or happens or is, it’s not a physical entity in any way shape or form and doesn’t interact with the universe. You’ll probably state that you agree in the sense that the spirit is noncorporeal so of course it’s not physical, but that leaves no room for interaction with the physical universe, unless you can describe how that interaction occurs. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [November 24, 2008, 9:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-acknowledgement-of-a-spirit-reasonable/472529/148 "2008-11-24T21:13:46Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > No one thinks _they’re_ going to hell. Toeing the ecclesiastical line is reinforced by a spiritual pat on the head. People feel like they’re working hard (obeying the commandments, going to church, whatever) and getting a reward they deserve. And if they don’t follow the rules they think that god will understand their travails, or that after the hail Marys they’re in the clear. The average Christian \*assumes \*they’re going to go to heaven. Yes, but the point you made was that thoughts of reunion after death are comforting and seductive, thus enticing people to believe. Even if they believe they’re going to heaven, it does not necessarily follow that they believe everyone _else_ is going to heaven. The only way the whole thing could be comforting, I would think, is if a person believes that heaven will contain only the people he likes most, and that there is no danger to him or them from any potentially evil spirits. Yet there are billions of Christians who follow (theoretically) someone who teaches that husband will be split off from wife, and father from son, and brother from sister. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [November 24, 2008, 9:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-acknowledgement-of-a-spirit-reasonable/472529/149 "2008-11-24T21:16:49Z")
> [@hotflungwok](#): > > I’m not even going to bother pointing out what science thinks of personal experience, you probably already know it. Apparently, you couldn’t help yourself. I think explaining God with science is like explaining gravity with prayer. There is no more knot-headed an idea than using science for anything other than empirical examinations. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [November 24, 2008, 9:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-acknowledgement-of-a-spirit-reasonable/472529/150 "2008-11-24T21:19:39Z")
> [@RaftPeople](#): > > I agree that the pattern of events we call natural selection do occur and are related in the way we think they are, but it’s still a pattern which is an abstract notion just like a flower arrangement. I think the underlying components exist independently of man and you could probably say the patterns exist (whether natural selection or flower arrangement), but a pattern is merely a description of something that happened or happens or is, it’s not a physical entity in any way shape or form and doesn’t interact with the universe. > > You’ll probably state that you agree in the sense that the spirit is noncorporeal so of course it’s not physical, but that leaves no room for interaction with the physical universe, unless you can describe how that interaction occurs. I really can’t, just as I can’t describe how the rampant uncertainty of the quantum universe manifests as the remarkably reliable and predictable physical model in which we live. My inability to do so, however, is not evidence that we don’t exist. We do seem to agree that a label is not the thing it labels, or as you might put it, a pattern is not the thing it patterns. ---
**Author:** ![hotflungwok](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/edb3f5/32.png) [@hotflungwok](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/hotflungwok)\ **Post date:** [November 24, 2008, 9:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-acknowledgement-of-a-spirit-reasonable/472529/151 "2008-11-24T21:31:44Z")
> [@Liberal](#): > > Apparently, you couldn’t help yourself. I think explaining God with science is like explaining gravity with prayer. There is no more knot-headed an idea than using science for anything other than empirical examinations. Dodging my real question, huh? Homeopathy, a practice that claims that water retains ‘knowledge’ of substances that are diluted in it, was subject to multiple rounds of double-blind scientific studies. All failed. Supporters of homeopathy came to the conclusion that double-blind studies were obviously not the way to test homeopathy. Sound familiar? If god is capable of affecting this universe, the reality we live in, then he can be studied by science. If he can’t, then how can we claim god exists? Same with spirits, btw. ---
**Author:** ![Strinka](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/strinka/32/512_2.png) [@Strinka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Strinka)\ **Post date:** [November 24, 2008, 10:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-acknowledgement-of-a-spirit-reasonable/472529/152 "2008-11-24T22:17:38Z")
> [@Liberal](#): > > All you can detect is the _potential_ of a particle’s vector, in terms of its probability. And you can detect that potential with, as you would call it, “perfect precision” as a range of solutions outside of which the vector is impossible. And that is something that you can measure. Hence, the particle is measurable. If something is not measurable it can not have any effect on the universe. If it did have an effect, any effect, that effect could be observed and measured. It seems fair to me to say that if something has absolutely no effect on anything in the universe, it does not exist in the universe. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [November 24, 2008, 10:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-acknowledgement-of-a-spirit-reasonable/472529/153 "2008-11-24T22:30:01Z")
> [@Strinka](#): > > And that is something that you can measure. Hence, the particle is measurable. No, it isn’t. Since we’re shooting for precision, let’s be precise. What you are measuring is the potential of the particle’s vector. If necessary, look very carefully at that to discern that “particle” is the object of a preposition, and not the direct object of the sentence. The direct object is “potential”, and that’s what you’re measuring. One can say that potential is all that exists on a quantum level. In fact, someone did: “The atoms or the elementary particles are not real; they form a world of potentialities and possibilities rather than one of things or facts.” — Werner Heisenberg > [@](#): > > If something is not measurable it can not have any effect on the universe. If it did have an effect, any effect, that effect could be observed and measured. It seems fair to me to say that if something has absolutely no effect on anything in the universe, it does not exist in the universe. That’s a different matter. Measuring the “effect of X” is not the same as measuring “X”. As I pointed out with quotations and citations from reputable sources, we can measure effects of spiritual experience on the brain’s limbic system. Der Trihs is concerned that he hasn’t seen this in the newspaper, but I can’t help that he won’t read Ramachandran’s books, for example, or his published papers, or those of other neurological researchers. ---
**Author:** ![Strinka](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/strinka/32/512_2.png) [@Strinka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Strinka)\ **Post date:** [November 25, 2008, 12:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-acknowledgement-of-a-spirit-reasonable/472529/154 "2008-11-25T00:11:49Z")
> [@Liberal](#): > > No, it isn’t. Since we’re shooting for precision, let’s be precise. What you are measuring is the potential of the particle’s vector. If necessary, look very carefully at that to discern that “particle” is the object of a preposition, and not the direct object of the sentence. The direct object is “potential”, and that’s what you’re measuring. One can say that potential is all that exists on a quantum level. In fact, someone did: “The atoms or the elementary particles are not real; they form a world of potentialities and possibilities rather than one of things or facts.” — Werner Heisenberg Ok… So, the potential, the measurable thing, is all that exists. The immeasurable doesn’t. > [@](#): > > That’s a different matter. Measuring the “effect of X” is not the same as measuring “X”. As I pointed out with quotations and citations from reputable sources, we can measure effects of spiritual experience on the brain’s limbic system. Der Trihs is concerned that he hasn’t seen this in the newspaper, but I can’t help that he won’t read Ramachandran’s books, for example, or his published papers, or those of other neurological researchers. And a spiritual experience is not necessarily a spirit. Mainly, my point was that if the spirit is really something that cannot be observed or measured, as **mbedell** says, then it doesn’t exist for all intents and purposes. If it is measurable as you claim, then that doesn’t really apply. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [November 25, 2008, 1:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-acknowledgement-of-a-spirit-reasonable/472529/155 "2008-11-25T01:03:34Z")
> [@Strinka](#): > > Ok… So, the potential, the measurable thing, is all that exists. The immeasurable doesn’t. I agree with you there. And of course, that means that there is no such thing in existence as the vector of a particle — there’s only the potential for one. > [@](#): > > And a spiritual experience is not necessarily a spirit. That’s certainly true. A spiritual experience, however, is an experience with a spirit. The evidence of that experience — unlike the vector of the particle — is directly observable. > [@](#): > > Mainly, my point was that if the spirit is really something that cannot be observed or measured, as **mbedell** says, then it doesn’t exist for all intents and purposes. If it is measurable as you claim, then that doesn’t really apply. It seems to me (and correct me if I’m wrong) that you are equating “that which exists” with “that which is physical”. If so, then your conclusion is in your premise. ---
**Author:** ![mbedell](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/edb3f5/32.png) [@mbedell](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mbedell)\ **Post date:** [November 25, 2008, 1:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-acknowledgement-of-a-spirit-reasonable/472529/156 "2008-11-25T01:37:35Z")
_“Mainly, my point was that if the spirit is really something that cannot be observed or measured, as mbedell says, then it doesn’t exist for all intents and purposes.”_ Not at all. I am very dedicated believer in spirit. I have felt them and my wife has seen them. Believing in spirit is fundamental to being a Christian. I just think its fruitless to debate this subject without a discussion of God. I realize that you guys like to break things down into their elemental parts and use classical logic, however, you cannot explain everything using this approach. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [November 25, 2008, 1:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-acknowledgement-of-a-spirit-reasonable/472529/157 "2008-11-25T01:58:02Z")
> [@Liberal](#): > > Your oxymoron doesn’t really merit any comment. But the ignorant and, as always, uncited claim in your post needs correction. All you can detect is the _potential_ of a particle’s vector, in terms of its probability. And you can detect that potential with, as you would call it, “perfect precision” as a range of solutions outside of which the vector is impossible. You just seem to have everything all mixed up. No; you are just confusing uncertainty with complete unknowability. > [@Liberal](#): > > Okay, sorry. I didn’t realize that your sole source of scientific epistemology was the BBC. Here’s something you [apparently missed](http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon/2003/godonbrain.shtml). “Prof Ramachandran denies that finding out how the brain reacts to religion negates the value of belief. He feels that brain circuitry like that Persinger and Newberg have identified, could amount to an antenna to make us receptive to god.” So some Professor tries to covers his ass with a baseless claim, and that’s supposed to be convincing ? From appearances, he’s either trying to placate the believers by lying ( rather like Stephen Hawking did for quite some time, pretending to not be atheist ), or he’s a believer himself and either deluded or lying to support his beliefs. You can’t trust the word of a religious believer on anything touching their beliefs. > [@Liberal](#): > > Worthless and uncited babble. No, the simple truth. Did you expect me to produce a link to “all of science” ? > [@Liberal](#): > > First, let’s dispense with your ignorance concerning proving a negative. [Read this paper](http://departments.bloomu.edu/philosophy/pages/content/hales/articles/proveanegative.html) by a philosophy professor. “It is widely believed that you can’t prove a negative. … This widespread belief is flatly, 100% wrong.” How amusing; you cite someone who is essentially arguing against YOUR brand of “logic”. Just switch “Bigfoot” and “alien abductions” for “God”. Not that he had the guts to point that out. The other flaw is that people like you who demand disproof of God before doubting his existence is that’s not the meaning of “disproof” you use or will accept. Believers demand absolute “disproof” of the sort science can’t produce on ANY subject. > [@Liberal](#): > > But I think it is equally important to point out the complete intellectual bankruptcy and recklessness of your post in general, and its governing modus operandus. There is no more dishonest debate tactic conceivable than summarily disregarding an opponent’s evidence — especially when the disregard flows from a position of profound ignorance. I’m not “disregarding” evidence; you simply haven’t come up with any. And considering how little clue you have about what you are talking about you are in no position to call anyone ignorant. > [@Liberal](#): > > Spirit is noncorporeal by definition, as I understand it. And where do the laws of physics permit such a thing ? Why should I or anyone take seriously an evidence free claim of a physics violation ? > [@Liberal](#): > > And yet, natural selection worked for quite some time without humans to cook it up. At this point, I don’t know whether you’re conflating our discovery of natural selection with the process itself. In any case, a thing need not be metaphysical to have no mass. “Natural selection” is either an abstract idea, or consists of the whole biosphere; and in the latter case has plenty of mass. > [@Liberal](#): > > I think explaining God with science is like explaining gravity with prayer. You can’t explain gravity with prayer because prayer is falsehood; a useless delusion. You can’t explain God with science because God is a falsehood; there’s nothing to explain.You might as well ask science to explain Sauron. > [@Liberal](#): > > No, it isn’t. Since we’re shooting for precision, let’s be precise. What you are measuring is the potential of the particle’s vector. If necessary, look very carefully at that to discern that “particle” is the object of a preposition, and not the direct object of the sentence. The direct object is “potential”, and that’s what you’re measuring. One can say that potential is all that exists on a quantum level. In fact, someone did: “The atoms or the elementary particles are not real; they form a world of potentialities and possibilities rather than one of things or facts.” — Werner Heisenberg And he was wrong; science has advanced somewhat since then. These days we can pick up individual atoms, or trap individual electrons in a Penning trap and hold it there. > [@Liberal](#): > > That’s a different matter. Measuring the “effect of X” is not the same as measuring “X”. As I pointed out with quotations and citations from reputable sources, we can measure effects of spiritual experience on the brain’s limbic system. Der Trihs is concerned that he hasn’t seen this in the newspaper, but I can’t help that he won’t read Ramachandran’s books, for example, or his published papers, or those of other neurological researchers. I’m well aware of that research; you are just ignoring that it is all evidence AGAINST your beliefs. Showing that religious and spiritual experiences originate in the brain and can even be artificially created is evidence AGAINST spirits and divine revelation and all the rest of that nonsense. Claims to the contrary make as much sense as a conspiracy theorist claiming that evidence against a conspiracy just shows how entrenched the conspiracy is. > [@Liberal](#): > > I agree with you there. And of course, that means that there is no such thing in existence as the vector of a particle — there’s only the potential for one. Again; particle vectors can and have been measured. > [@Liberal](#): > > That’s certainly true. A spiritual experience, however, is an experience with a spirit. The evidence of that experience — unlike the vector of the particle — is directly observable. There’s no such thing as a “direct observation” of anything outside your own mind, if that. And particles can be observed with various scientific instruments; you can even make a single trapped electron or atom visible. A trick involving a Penning trap, a telescope mirror, and illumination by a laser; the scientist who invented it said he was tired of people claiming that particles were abstractions, like you have been, so he captured some and made them visible. He even gave them individual names; rather cutesy ones as I recall. > [@mbedell](#): > > I am very dedicated believer in spirit. I have felt them and my wife has seen them. Believing in spirit is fundamental to being a Christian. I just think its fruitless to debate this subject without a discussion of God. Well, you are wrong; it’s perfectly possible to believe in one without the other. ---
**Author:** ![Strinka](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/strinka/32/512_2.png) [@Strinka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Strinka)\ **Post date:** [November 25, 2008, 1:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-acknowledgement-of-a-spirit-reasonable/472529/158 "2008-11-25T01:59:50Z")
> [@Liberal](#): > > That’s certainly true. A spiritual experience, however, is an experience with a spirit. The evidence of that experience — unlike the vector of the particle — is directly observable. But how do you tell the difference between an experience with a spirit and a chemical interaction in the brain? We know LSD and other drugs can make you see, hear and feel things that aren’t there. From my perspective, I see no difference between the two, and see no reason that chemicals can’t be an explanation for spiritual experiences. > [@](#): > > It seems to me (and correct me if I’m wrong) that you are equating “that which exists” with “that which is physical”. If so, then your conclusion is in your premise. Well, if anything that interacts with the physical world is also physical then yes. But I could imagine something non-physical interacting with the physical world. The important part is the interaction. If something can’t interact with the physical world, then it can have no impact on the physical world. It might still exist in some other plane/dimension/universe/whatever, but for all intents and purposes, it doesn’t exist to us. > [@mbedell](#): > > _“Mainly, my point was that if the spirit is really something that cannot be observed or measured, as mbedell says, then it doesn’t exist for all intents and purposes.”_ > > Not at all. I am very dedicated believer in spirit. I have felt them and my wife has seen them. Feeling and seeing is observing. Earlier you said spirits can’t be observed. Which is it? > [@](#): > > Believing in spirit is fundamental to being a Christian. I just think its fruitless to debate this subject without a discussion of God. I realize that you guys like to break things down into their elemental parts and use classical logic, however, you cannot explain everything using this approach. I don’t see what god has to do with spirits directly. Could you explain that? ---
**Author:** ![mbedell](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/edb3f5/32.png) [@mbedell](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mbedell)\ **Post date:** [November 25, 2008, 2:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-acknowledgement-of-a-spirit-reasonable/472529/159 "2008-11-25T02:18:59Z")
_“Well, you are wrong; it’s perfectly possible to believe in one without the other”_ You certainly lack wisdom. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [November 25, 2008, 2:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-acknowledgement-of-a-spirit-reasonable/472529/160 "2008-11-25T02:26:38Z")
> [@mbedell](#): > > _“Well, you are wrong; it’s perfectly possible to believe in one without the other”_ > > You certainly lack wisdom. Hardly. One can believe in a god without believing in “spirits”; one can believe in “spirits” without believing in gods. The two beliefs typically go together in modern Western religions, but are not intrinsically connected. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-acknowledgement-of-a-spirit-reasonable/472529.md?page=7) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-acknowledgement-of-a-spirit-reasonable/472529.md?page=9)