Cool Blogs

[reith]

Originally Posted by sawscape

This is rather interesting. And I think I see a source of the disagreement.



I think the problem with the bright's and most non-believers' approach is shown in the above quote. They are taking the scientific way out.

The problem is that science is wholly inappropriate for answering, or evening framing, spiritual questions. I reference a book by Stephen Jay Gould called Rocks of Ages: Science and Religion in the Fullness of Life. His premise is that science and religion are non-overlapping magesteria (NOMA). They are orthogonal and, thus, cannot answer the significant questions of the other.

People tend to get into big trouble, or create big problems, when they use either science or religion to "pontificate" about the other. This has mainly worked, negatively, from the religious to science direction (e.g., Galileo). But, as science and scientists become more involved our daily life, it is also more and more common in the science to religious direction. I forget all the examples, but they are laid out in the book.

Science, since it is limited to observations within this universe, it is not capable of answering the larger questions of why or how this universe was even created.

That is why such questions are in the magisteria of religion (a belief system), regardless of how you answer them. And, I would say that all worldviews do have some answers to these questions, even if they use scientific terms or are state them in a way that makes it seem like they are not answering them.

I'm generally steering clear of this discussion but I tend to agree with much of what you say....except:

I tend to separate "religion" from the spiritual. Religion seems to be a belief system whereas our-spiritual-selves are based on private data that defies scrutiny of the material sciences without the observer(s) becoming part of the result. I'm talking about (spiritual) energies that drive us and, sure, you can blanket a "scientific" explanation that suits those fixed in the material world but it doesn't answer most of the questions that concern me. A belief in God doesn't either. An amount of interior exploration has partially, though.

A long time ago, people were (more or less) forced to hand over their spiritual welfare to a bunch of people called priests (or equivalent) who spotted a great and powerful business opportunity. Only the true gnostics realised this folly and all-but got stamped out as a result. So the connection between religion and spirituality was cemented.

To me, scientists have come on a bit since the days of the alchemists but they're as far away as ever from finding the metaphorical Philosopher's Stone.

And since we're quoting Pink Floyd: And what exactly is a dream? And what exactly is a joke?

[sawscape]

This is the dividing line, indeed. I concur that philosophical questions exist. But I don’t need religious dogmas as “answers”, and I just have no craving for “believing” anything about The Celestial Teapot.

It appears that we are actually in agreement, but fall on different sides of the issue. There are non-testable (non-scientific) questions out there and there are different ways of dealing with them--i.e., what to believe. You choose not to accept any of the various religious dogma's. No prob. Everyone has that choice (that is a consequence of free will :-) ). I was not trying to convert anyone.

One small point: I don't think that theorethical cosmology deals with 'how' the universe was created. It deals with things like 'when' or 'what has happened since' the creation of the universe. All information about the universe's pre-conditions, which would give us insight as to 'how,' is not available to us.

[sawscape]

Just a quick question, according to statistics only 1/3 of USA citizens have a passport and an even less amount leave their country. Do you regulary visit other countries on holidays etc? I think this is where the "fear of the outside world" comes from. (I'm not saying this is in your case, just a theory ;-))

I've been to Canada (born there) and Mexico. I go to Europe occasionally on business and will be there twice in June, actually. (unfortunately, I have a day job and don't compose full time)
I never thought of the US has having a fear of the outside world. Rather there seems to be more of a fear, manifest in hatred, in the other direction these days. The US is a big place, with a lot going on, so we may be less up to date with things outside our borders. While the US may not have a great understanding of the rest of the world, the rest of the world doesn't have a great understanding of the US either (given it is the most diverse society), even though they think they do. I certainly don't get what is going on here.

I was just refering to the reality that the world is still dangerous. While Europe is relatively peaceful these days, there is still quite a bit of conflict elsewhere (even excluding Iraq). In all human history, there has always been violent conflict.

We could turn this on its head and say: "I'm not sure that a purely religious-progressive society, being hyper-intolerant and un-appeasing, is prepared to withstand future (current) struggles". So in my opinion this dosn't quite stand up. We don't know what the world would be like without religion we can only draw conclusions of what has become of religion. Right now, how many of the world's conflicts are sparked by religion or religious intolerance?

I think the problem is totalitarian or dictatorial types of goverments. Some of these are religion based, but not all. That is why you need to first separate church and state and then have a democracy. That is the formula for lasting peace.

[sawscape]

I'm generally steering clear of this discussion but I tend to agree with much of what you say....except:

I tend to separate "religion" from the spiritual. Religion seems to be a belief system whereas our-spiritual-selves are based on private data that defies scrutiny of the material sciences without the observer(s) becoming part of the result. I'm talking about (spiritual) energies that drive us and, sure, you can blanket a "scientific" explanation that suits those fixed in the material world but it doesn't answer most of the questions that concern me. A belief in God doesn't either. An amount of interior exploration has partially, though.

I was treating religion as a very general concept, not wanting to get into the various characteristics of the major, or minor, religions--and certainly not into the way people practice or mis-practice their religions. But I certainly understand that it is hard to separate the word religion from everyone's perception and experience with the major religions out there.

[reith]

Ok. I don't personally think spirituality has anything to do with religion though religion has much to do with spirituality in the eyes of the religious since it (religion) commandeered it under various pretexts, much as the medical profession has taken over our individual responsibility for our health.
Spirituality, to me, is about discovering one's selfhood and becoming responsible for it - all you need believe in is your existence.....though for all of us that's very hard to prove.

[Thorolf]

A nice quotation:

Originally Posted by Richard Dawkins

I have found an amusing strategy, when asked whether I am an atheist to point out that the questioner is also an atheist when considering Zeus, Apollo, Amon-Ra, Mithras, Baal, Thor, Wotan, the Golden Calf and the Flying Spaghetti Monster. I just go one god further.

Regards

[Ballaw de Quincewold]

Originally Posted by Thorolf

A nice quotation:I have found an amusing strategy, when asked whether I am an atheist to point out that the questioner is also an atheist when considering Zeus, Apollo, Amon-Ra, Mithras, Baal, Thor, Wotan, the Golden Calf and the Flying Spaghetti Monster. I just go one god further.
Regards

good plan That will get them thinking.