Hello all!

I wanted to actually ask a question of one of our new members and, was just going to PM him. However, the more I thought about it the more I thought it would be an interesting topic for everyone. So... I'm being open as this question was inspired by one of our newest members Dog's Mercury.

He said this in his introduction;


And it made me want to ask this;

DM has stated very definately that he is a man pretty much of pure science "thought " (when it comes to what he belives). However he mentions a "spiritual" context of understanding something scientific. Something I feel many athiest can relate to. And I was wondering. Even as athiests, is there any part of your UPG that can not be explained on anything other than a deep seated "spiritual" way? Do these POV's ever have space for the spritual?

No? Really? lol Aaahh well.. maybe another time!

Dear Xalle,



Awwwww. I'm happy to come and sit with you until another Unbeliever happens by .

BB,

John Macintyre

Echo................................Echo..............................



Well we rationalists are a taciturn bunch aren't we. I saw this thread but thought I'd wait for a few other posters to reply before leaving a comment. While I'm waiting though, a couple of questions.

What does UPG stand for?

How are you defining spiritual (I think that's likely to be central to the whole thing).

How do you relate spirituality to knowledge, thought and understanding? Is it transcendent, emergent or completely removed from them, or none of the above.

I guess I'm getting you to answer your own question really so if anyone else has an opinion, rationalist or not, I for one would be interested to hear it.

Cheers,

Jaime

Awww... John you're always so sweet to me!

Maybe I dun gone an worded it badly an nubuddy gets me!

UPG Unverified Personal Gnosis

Yeah I know what you mean about waiting for others. Its like a skipping game at times wondering when or if you should jump in.

Well... I think defining spritual is what its all about really.

You said yourself that paganisim as such gives you a spiritual context for your understanding of nature and I wondered what you meant by that. And I was wondering what we, as athiests mean by spiritual. Especially those atheists, like you that have quite set perameters of what you accept to be "real". I mean no disrespect by that BTW!

I wonder, I suppose, if the need to have something other than science is hardwired into us and that wee worm raises its head now and then. I mean how can we as athiests use the word spiritual? How many athiests believe in Karma? How many are susceptible to superstition? Why are the athiests on here, uncontent with being just "atheists" and feel a need to call themselves Pagan? I dont have the answers I'm afraid. Im just hoping others will share thoughts on it.

Hi, xalle,

just my two penneth, its nice when evidence can be presented for 'unexplained' phenomena eg. by paranormal psychologists that may explain some odd experiences, that, personally, may be seen as a part of a more 'spiritual' side such as sensing spirits from the otherside (eg orbs, geomagnetic forces and so on).

As an athiest, I realise that probably to be truly athiest one cannot accept a phenomena as fact unless it is verifiable by scientific testing (or am I wrong here?), and whilst I can understand that there is sound reason for pursuing truth in this manner, I also think that evidence for 'truth' is limited by our own knowledge and technology. Therefore, we cannot entirely rule out the irrational, the illogical or things that are 'untruths' either. some truths, I think, are still waiting to be discovered.

fizz

I don't use the term spirituality to mean anything supernatural, but by the same token I don't think that our spirituality needs to be excessively rational either.

This sounds contradictory so I will try to give an example, as a biologist I study evolution, I learn how unfathomably complex organisms and ecosystems can emerge from simple rules and basic materials. To me this is awe inspiring, it takes my breath away it really does, just look a tree and imagine what had to transpire for it to come into being, imagine the web of dependencies and interactions it has with its environment you'd have to be pretty jaded not to be moved. But there are two processes going on here, my knowledge and understanding are gained through rational inquiry but my reactions to that knowldege, the values and meaning I derive from that understanding they are not always logically deduced. They are not neccessarily inherent to the facts of the matter either . An eagle is not intrinsically majestic, a snake is not intrinsically sinister, autumn isn't inherently melancholy. To my mind spirituality is like a thread in a web of interpretation wrapped around a core of knowledge, it depends on our knowledge and understanding but is not defined or limited by it (perhaps it could be thought of as a kind of meta-knowledge).

Science can help us find truth but it does not provide us with values or meaning, for these we must look elsewhere, not to gods or the supernatural, but within ourselves and each other.

Sorry for what may seem like kind of a woolly post but these are tough concepts and if I had it all figured out......well.....you know.

Peace

DM

I understand. What makes us live is the value and meaning we place on things. Those are spiritual - they are what makes/forms/informs/inspires our own spirit.

There are the things which take our breath away in the 'real' world, there are things we may experience in the 'non-real' - er, consensual - world, and there are interactions with gods. These are each different in kind. They may interact for theists; for none theists there may be only one factor, or two. One may be a-theist i.e. there are no gods, but still experience a non-consensual reality. Or one may simply wonder at the world one sees around one, and draw sustaining inspiration from that.

An a-theist may be someone who believes that other life on our world has its own consciousness, or that it does not, but is still inspiring.

Does this get at what you mean, DM?

I was half hoping this was going to be a rationalist vs empiricist debate about epistemology.

What exactly is meant here by rationalism? I have always understood the word to mean the opposite to empiricism i.e. you cannot learn true knowledge using your senses and memory as they can be deceived (think Descartes’ demon or the Matrix).



I would disagree with you as atheism refers to the belief in the non-existence of gods, it comes from the Greek atheos meaning ‘no gods’. now if you were a sceptic (skeptic for Americans) like David Hume or a logical positivist like A. J. Ayer then you would only be able to accept a phenomena as fact if it was empirically verifiable.

Here’s something I wrote about atheism and agnosticism a while back:

ome info on atheism and agnosticism that may be of some use.

Atheism

Atheism is the disbelief or non-belief in God or gods. This can take two main forms:

Practical atheism - Indifference towards or ignorance of religion/God/gods

Also called pragmatic atheism or apatheism, practical atheism is existing from day to day without belief in God/gods. Natural phenomena is explained without reference to God/gods, and moral or ethical actions are not motivated by any idea of God/gods or ‘divine punishment’.



Theoretical atheism

These arguments specifically formulated to reject all dispute God/god, religion or theism. Theoretical atheism comes in many flavours –

Logical atheism - the view that the existence of God is impossible because of logical inconsistencies in the description of God.

Anthropocentric atheism - review of many philosophers, such as Marks, Nietzsche and Sartre, that humanity, not God, should be a source of all the ethical and moral values.

Epistemological atheism - the idea that people cannot know what determine the existence of God.

Agnosticism

Agnosticism is the idea that we do not (or it is not possible to) have certain or absolute knowledge of God's existence or non-existence. Agnostics claim that any individual certainty is not based on knowledge, but belief.

Agnosticism is a form of scepticism, as described by Hume:
" all the meaningful statements are qualified by some degree of doubt. Humans cannot obtain certainty except in statements which are true by definition, E. G. all triangles have three sites"

Agnosticism is different from other forms of scepticism, as it is not only the existence of God is this questioned, but the nature of God itself.

Agnosticism is available in many flavours:

Agnostic atheism
"I didn't know whether God exists, and I don't believe that God exists"

Agnostic atheism
"I do know whether God exists, but I do believe that God exists"

Strong agnosticism
The idea that the existence of God is unknowable
"I can't know, and neither can you"

Weak agnosticism
The idea that the existence of God is not currently known, but is potentially knowable
"I don't know, but maybe you do is quite



‘ignosticism’
the idea that discussion of God's existence is meaningless into a coherent definition of God is reached.

I would describe myself as an agnostic-atheist

Right then.. * rolls up sleeves and trooser legs*

I don't view gods as beings, higher entities etc.. I just don't do gods/goddesses and such. As we've discussed previously, it is my opinion that we've attached human instincts, emotions etc to forces of nature in a way for us to connect/understand the energy surrounding us.

When I stand outside at night, under the stars or walk along an empty shore as the waves crash againt it.. I can't help feeling but a small part of something way big.. that to me is spiritual.. it connects with something deep inside and helps me make sense of my self.. there is no limit.. no end, no beginning...
There is so much out there to be discovered and felt and each of us will interpret knowledge in our own way. Some of us may say it's the work of the gods ( and argue about which god etc ), some may take a purely scientific approach and some may completely deny the existence of any spiritual background to anything becuase there's no tangible proof.



I kinda like this DM.. It sits well with me

Barn

Hi MH,

You seem to be saying that my ideas about spirituality could be extended beyond rational knowledge and that inspiration could be drawn from one's own (IE subjective) view of reality (apologies if I misunderstood). That makes sense to me provided one has sufficient conviction in those views to draw inspiration from them. But as to what I was getting at, well I think I was trying to emphasize that although spirituality may not be completely rational itself, it is still consistent for a rational person to embrace it. To be a spiritual person does not necessarily require belief in the supernatural, I would be saddened to think of anyone who looked upon the world around us and found nothing to which they could forge a spiritual connection.

DM

I kinda agree with you here DM... so it makes me wonder. Is spirituality actually, just another form of emotion. I mean love is entirely subjective, irrational. I dont mean physical attraction I mean the actual emotion. Same with all of them, they may have symptoms like anger. But ultimately they are not something you can dissect, if you get my drift. Is spirituality and are maybe even gods, a primeval emotion?

Xalle,

Yes probably emotions are a component of the type of spirituality we're positing here. But I think that's not the whole story, Spiritual constructs can signify more than just your feelings towards reality, they can include meaning and judgment as well I think. Thinking about it though, emotions must arbitrate this process, since it is unlikely you would construct (or adopt) a spiritual framework that you found emotionally negative (ie frightening, disgusting etc), one would be more likely to gravitate toward a form of spirituality that was fulfilling or joyful I would imagine.

Pretty deep stuff

DM

- and without all the big word stuff, telepathy exists (for example) and when that happens it gives you a connection that blasts all the doubt and need for rational out of your mind so that the 'spiritual' values you describe become a part of your construction.

I only use words like spiritual when talking in threads like this to explain what is natural to me.

too much rational these days, economic, political, social (or was that quietly hidden after eugenics?)

atheism is fine, it isn't any more 'rational' than theism except when people line up to form groups

that 'connection between us' that affirms the 'value' set of all these moral rationalists and scientists, try having that connection with a truly evil bastard not just someone you choose or whose pheromones you so like, then you start to understand the true spiritual shape of this universe, or our small part of it

then try having that 'connection' with the 'feeling' of gravity, you might learn something else, like how to levitate, then you also can be dismissed as just a UPG or whatever the latest buzz phrase is

I didn't make this universe, you didnt make this universe, God didn't make this universe -'wa the feck daid?' thats the question you contemplate if you want spiritual values, not just what the next door hairless ape is doing to your daughter

and when you realise it wasnt created you start to understand
but it certainly isnt a rational realisation!

Yup.. thats pretty much where I was going with that train of thought. I suppose it is deep! You reach for a faith or spirituality or god or whatever it is you want to call it, that makes a connection to you and that has to be an emotional connection surely?

Jape




Um... I use magick. That does not blow rationality for me. It makes it a little more difficult as I cant actaully discribe why or how it works. But in the same way that I know that "life" is not god given I know magick and telepathy will at some point be explained rationally. I'm just not living in that time yet.

I think you see this thread as an attack on spirituality or belief. It really isnt. For me its a discussion with fellow "pagan" atheists (which even tho I think thats an odd phrase I DO label myself with it) and non athiests on the basis of why we gravitate towards the spiritual.

JAPE says: that 'connection between us' that affirms the 'value' set of all these moral rationalists and scientists, try having that connection with a truly evil bastard not just someone you choose or whose pheromones you so like, then you start to understand the true spiritual shape of this universe, or our small part of it

...how very observant of you jape, the thing is we do make connections (or at least I do/have done) with a whole range of good/evil things/people etc, and you are quite right, (from my perspective any way), my depth of understanding of this 'world' has been greatly enhanced just by exploring this concept alone both in practice and in thought (by that I don't mean that I go round killing, maiming or hurting people, I mean I have interacted with, helped/offered support to those who are regarded as evil by the majority of society)...although life is not always about good and evil though.

fizz.

But what is that 'spiritual connection'? What is its nature? If it is to invest meaning in something phenomenal (a "thing" like a chair, or a tree, or a biological process), then whose meaning? That sort of importation of value is certainly subjective. If it is not, what is it?

Whether it is also supernatural possibly depends upon your definition of 'supernatural'

>>But what is that 'spiritual connection'?

I guess that's what we are discussing, I am only offering my view of how it might be derived, I'm interested in the views of others as they might well allow me to refine or change my own.

>>What is its nature? If it is to invest meaning in something phenomenal (a "thing" like a chair, or a tree, or a biological process), then whose meaning?

Yes at the moment I think of spirituality as a reaction (or reactions) to information. I also think that we have a conscious role in constructing (adopting) our spiritual framework which is why for some it derives exclusively from objective reality but not for others.

>>That sort of importation of value is certainly subjective. If it is not, what is it?

I think it is subjective, perhaps it could be constructed entirely on objective principles I haven't really thought about it (although now I might )

>>Whether it is also supernatural possibly depends upon your definition of 'supernatural'

Big topic in itself and although worthy I wouldn't want to divert this post discussing my definition of the supernatural unless that's where everyone wants to go.

In case it needs to be reiterated though, just because I am discussing a spirituality which derives from objective reality, I am not judging those who believe in deitys, magic etc. But those of us who do not believe in those things still have a desire to ascribe meaning and value to our world (except maybe the nihilists ).

Peace

DM

Oh no - I was just being tongue-in-cheek.



What you want to discuss is a very worthwhile topic. IMO it is absolutely possible - and normal - to be spiritual without being a theist. What I find difficult to get my mind round is marrying that with any strict form of rationalism.

Well to try and clarify where I coming from, here is a brief thought experiment.

I am walking through a field and see a blue flower.
I decide that I like the colour.
Blue becomes my favorite colour.
Later I am redecorating my house and decide to paint my living room blue.

The fact that the flower is blue is an objective and testable phenomenon.
My liking blue is a subjective reaction to said phenomenon.
Deciding that blue is my favorite color is a (partly at least) conscious value derived from a subjective reaction to the objective phenomenon.
Painting my room blue is an activity based on a subjective set of values derived objective phenomenon.

Only the blueness of the flower is objective and testable but painting my room blue because I once saw a blue flower I liked would not be considered irrational behavior.

This is of course way simplified but it does go someway to illustrate my point. Which is that objective reality may be the bedrock of a rationalist's spirituality, but that adopting subjective constructs derived from this reality is neither inconsistent or irrational.

BTW it would be irrational to start saying that blue is the best colour, or forcing everyone to paint their rooms blue or persecuting people who liked red. That is why, to my mind, one needs to be very clear about the difference between subjective and objective phenomena, if we don't then dogmatic behavior often ensues.

DM

Not so much that as boredom and ire at the constant, it seems, interjection of rationalism and various strains of that into a forum which is as much about faith and belief as about proof. And I tried in my post to add a relevant POV without just spitting! Respect you far too much for that.

I can rationalise with the best of them, just can't be bothered much any more with the semantic arguments and refined vocabulary of university coffee klatsch discussions we are getting to see so much of.

A thread like this one here and there exploring the topic is fine and interesting but I am starting to find it objectionable that these issues are creeping into and taking over in part so many other threads clearly related by OP to issues of faith and belief.

I am not scared or reticent about arguing a position as witch and I agree that some people could be rational atheists and still shape magick or have a spiritual perspective but I am just fed up with the regular interjection, however valid, of what from some seems to be supposition that belief, faith and years of experience is worthless (except in some weird self-related fantasy way) because it doesn't fit into any objective reality etc etc.), unless supported by evidence that that particular minority requires. And I know the grammar of that sentence was suspect!

We all know that metaphysics was a greek word coined by Aristotle or someone to mean simply 'beyond physics' of that day 2000 years ago or whenever. We have had interesting discussion on the quantum physics of the last century as related to magickal experience and so on. My personal view is that on a forum such as UKP we get that and offer that sort of discussion in quite a balanced and intelligent way.

Too much of it in recent months, often disguised as 'healthy skepticism', free debate' and so on. Enough that I have seriously considered leaving the forum on a few occasions. That may be overreacting. But this is indeed subjective, it is a part of 'home' for me. And I know from experience that if I leave for a while most of the constantly intrusive egotists will have moved on by the time I come back and 'me mates' will still be here. And still doing magick and chatting friendlily to the non-magickal pagans and helping visitors asking questions, young and old.

err...but liking the colour blue isn't a spiritual experience.

I understand you were trying to find an illustration, but I'd probably need one which actually touches on something I might regard as spiritual.

I think you mentioned trees somewhere. How about using them?

True (at least for me) but as you say, it's only an illustration, of how we might think and act in subjective ways in relation to objective phenomena and how that isn't irrational or inconsistent.

In the same way spirituality, which is subjective can be derived from the objective.

You could substitute the flower for whatever is relevant to you and the logic would hold.

But bear in mind that's just what I understand by spirituality which isn't very much at this point ,hence my interest in this discussion

Cheers

DM

I am going to be frank with you and say I find that a bit unfair. " Refined vocabulary of university coffee klatsch discussions", "intrusive egotists "?

No-one here is demanding proof of anything. I am certainly not. As for discussing faith and belief and how we relate to it. Is that not one of the questions suitable for a site on paganisim? Like I said. People here call themselves Pagan Athiests. This is a discussion about Pagan Athiesim and how we relate to the spiritual. There is no judgement here on how others view the world, or their faith and there is certainly no intent to dissect or demand proof for your beliefs. If you as a Thiest, want to join in, to try and give a perspective or your POV please do. But this is not an attack and its certainly not meant to be an exercise in "university challenge" type questions or responses or a game of "who can use the most complex words to make a sentence". Some of the comments here I am going to have to pull appart to get the meaning of, (or maybe I'll just ask) but this is not an attack Jape and I'm sorry you feel that athiest discussing their take on magick and spirituality and that which we cant explain feels like an attack to you on your beliefs. It is not intended that way.

Well, I'll try it, but I doubt it will work. :

I am walking through a wood and see a tree.
I decide that I like the tree.
The tree becomes my favourite species.
Later I am in the wood and I try talking to the tree.
The tree talks back.
I decide that trees can communicate.

The fact that the tree is a tree is an objective and testable phenomenon.
My liking the tree is a subjective reaction to said phenomenon.
Deciding that I wish to talk to the tree is a (partly at least) conscious value derived from a subjective reaction to the objective phenomenon.
That I feel that trees can communicate is based on a subjective experience.

You see? I doubt you'd say that talking to trees is a rational response to liking a tree.

I suppose I could try something else: that I admired the efficiency of photosynthesis. But I don't know how that translates into a spiritual experience.

Sorry Xalle, I was using your thread to vent some ire.

I also said: "A thread like this one here and there exploring the topic is fine and interesting but I am starting to find it objectionable that these issues are creeping into and taking over in part so many other threads clearly related by OP to issues of faith and belief."

I know one can ignore or not answer or not get involved but I try and read most of the threads and posts and I simply don't like what I am seeing lately. Thus, I shall leave! Personal problem, personal choice.

I think it holds up to and including the part where you are talking to the tree. Wanting to talk to the tree is the subjective part of the analogy (like painting your room blue) there need not be an objective reason for it.

The tree talking back depends on whether you mean that as an assertion or not. Using your subjective reactions to the tree as a basis for making an assertion about reality (ie trees can talk to you) that would be irrational but then there is not a part of my original illustration that corresponds to doing that.

I'm not saying that spiritually has to be rational, I'm saying it can be. The person who talks to the tree has a spiritual connection, I wold argue that the person who walks past the tree and just smiles may have a spiritual connection. The fact that they don't subscribe to any irrational beliefs doesn't change that.

It goes without saying of course that subscribing to beliefs that aren't objectively testable in response to observing the world around us is also spiritual (in fact it represents the vast majority spirituality I have encountered),

Does that make it any clearer....I hope so.

The usual caveat here, I don't have all the answers and this is all just a line of thought, but the thread has been very stimulating so far.

You are quite right Jape you did say that. It was wrong of me not to acknowledge that.

But dont leave!

I identify very strongly with the ideas quoted in the original post.

I see. So atheists and rationalists are not supposed to have any POV about gods whatsoever? And if we do, we are supposed to keep our mouths shut?

The very fact that theists have responded to this thread shows there is a double standard somewhere in the above comment. OK for theists to respond to a post directed to atheists, but not OK for atheists to respond on a 'theist' post? That's fine (and TBH I tend to avoid the posts about Gods and Goddesses, because I have nothing to contribute), but to leave a forum because you disagree with a very small percentage of the membership and believe that they post too much? Sad.

I know that you have now decided to take a hiatus from the forum Jape. I hope when you return you have learned tolerance for other peoples personal beliefs.

I believe that the Earth is a living entity, and that elementals and other natural spirits are part of this.


I tend to try to avoid the words 'religion' and 'spiritualism' when dealing with the less scientific portion of my life. I use the word 'numinous', as it gives me the feeling of something tremendously important, without giving it the mushy connotation of 'religious experience'. To me, a picture of a galaxy or an electron microscope image stirs feelings that may be considered 'religious' by other people.

As Arthur C Clarke said:

Just because we cannot explain it (to my satisfaction anyway) now doesn't mean there won't be an explanation in the future. I am an atheist and am proud of it. I believe there is no god, gods, or other creator, and never has been. But that doesn't mean I have no feelings, or am going to insist that everything is totally explainable straight away. Even rationalists much scratch their heads from time to time.

Especially rationalists, I would say

Can we try to keep any moans impersonal, please, folks?

Read the title, this thread is specifically addressed to both atheists and theists.

If there is no objective reason, then how can the 'what' (one wishes to do) be said to be rational rather than irrational?

Sorry if I'm being thick.

The lack of an objective reason doesn't always make something irrational. A preference (like a favourite colour) is subjective; it's not irrational to have a preference.

I may not be explaining this too well

DM

I suspect we're using the word 'rational' differently. To me, a preference is irrational if there is no logical reason for it.

If I understand Moonhunter correctly, the question is, if what qualifies as rational is subjective, what defines the irrational? I'm probably as clear as mud on this as well .

I suspected as much as well

But we did quite well I think, if we nailed it down to just a question of semantics.

Always good to learn someone else's viewpoint.

DM

XALLE asked in her original post: Even as athiests, is there any part of your UPG that can not be explained on anything other than a deep seated "spiritual" way? Do these POV's ever have space for the spritual?

gosh, there's there loads of stuff, now that I think about it, for example, the livingness of a tree felt subjectively, almost like it has an identity, or a feeling. even rocks and soil are, in a way, alive for me but not in the same way as I would think of as the livingness of a tree for example.

I pick up 'connections' all over the place both human and non human, sometimes these connections are separate, individual and then at other times when I 'step
back' these connections make me feel in awe at the intricate and truly enormous nature of life. (from my point of view life is spiritual whether animate or inanimate - so I guess I am a bit animist but don't believe in a god/dess - although to be fair there have been experiences I have shared with my partner that has made me seriously question the nature of a 'god').

fizz.

i thought i was an Atheist as i say i dont believe in gods/godess's but im confused ,im now thinking its not that i dont believe im willing to accept the fact that they might exist because i havent got any proof either way but i havent had an experience yet that shows me they do ,so i suppose i should say im on the fence at the moment
i do agree with lots of the above post though as i have had the same sort of experiences,i hope this makes sense

this also makes sense to me from Wrydwoman's post

I believe that the Earth is a living entity, and that elementals and other natural spirits are part of this.

There seem to be quite a few approaches to atheism (someone posted a number of descriptions earlier on in the thread); one important distinction I draw is between the following two statements:

"I believe there are no gods"
"I do not believe there are gods"

Some would contend that they amount to the same thing but I would say that in the absence of any evidence you can't really make a positive assertion that there are no gods. You have to content yourself with saying that if there is no evidence for something then the default course of action is not to believe it.

I say this in the context of discussing rationality and atheism of course, what you choose to believe is ultimately up to you

So how do you divide things up? When discussing the subjective, what makes something 'rational' or 'irrational' for you? What are the criteria?

For me most things are rational.

There is very little that I know or do or experience that I cant rationalise in some way. When it comes to spirituality, for me, I believe it is an emotion. A "gut" response.

That said, I fall into the "I believe there are no gods", however only just. I am THIS close to saying, there are no gods.

Heh. IME that gets said just before one taps you on the shoulder... with a baseball bat.

Mine too. Atheism was so nice though. I didn't worry about my sanity when I was an atheist.

Well for me the line is drawn when someone makes assertions about what is true or real.

To use the example of talking to trees and having them talk back.

The desire to talk to a tree, while subjective is not making any new claim on reality, as a human being you are perfectly able to talk to trees if you so wish, it's not irrational in my opinion.

Saying that they talk back (or understand you) is making a claim about reality and for that you would need to provide objective evidence in order to avoid the claim being irrational.

That's how I look at it.

DM

Or alternatively... have a rational explanation for? I mean not all science is proven and not all that we understand about the universe science is more than a theory. Granted a logical one that allows for the laws of physics and science that we know to be correct.

For example. I've never had a tree "talk back" to me. However, I believe all living things are made from and have their own energy, there is nothing to say that someone cant tune their energy into that of the tree. I'm not sure that constitutes "talking back" but it does fall into a form of communication and that definition falls into the rational category.

Or at least I think it does.

Sorry but I don't buy that. If I tell you I'm in love, is that irrational? It's entirely subjective, I can't offer you any proof, but it's real and I don't think anyone would say it's irrational.