The Winding Path – 029

For the context of the following comments please click on the hyperlinks above them.

26 August 2013 12:43 PM

PlaClair – Well, there goes LilySmith again, with a patently dishonest answer. The statement invited this forum’s resident theists to compare the contributions made by the respective methods, science and theology. LilySmith completely changed the statement and commented on that.

LilySmith gave a perfectly reasonable and informed answer to a myopic assertion on your part.

Aren’t you the one who is suppose to defend your own premiss?

When I asked how old science was (setting aside the nuance of association included), what answer have you provided? Perhaps if you see science in the mix of inquiry from the beginning of our species, or even as a universal absolute, then I might reconsider the merit of you statement. We have been, and remain a species with Theistic and Logistical tendencies. We are the species that wonders why and how we exist. This is the very root of the scientific method. Science has not replaced God. God sustains the possibility of science.

I think maybe that science, as you represent it, remains “half baked”.

26 August 2013 12:19 PM

PLaClair – Well, there goes LilySmith again, with a patently dishonest answer. The statement invited this forum’s resident theists to compare the contributions made by the respective methods, science and theology. LilySmith completely changed the statement and commented on that.

At best, brmckay ignored the question, then openly missed its point.

If you’d like to try again, you two, the statement, verbatim, is: “Because in the thousands of years of human history, theistic belief has not contributed one speck of knowledge or produced even one advance in science.” It is a true statement. Scientific methods have contributed vast amounts of new knowledge. Theistic belief, and its methods, have not contributed anything. Face the question head-on, if you can bear the light, and address it.

Stonehendge.

The pyramids and mummification techniques.

Healing and psychotropic properties of plants.

Bushmen healing trance.

The physics of music making.

A big one in my book and relevant to the entire conversation. Vedic mapping of human consciousness and the discovery of the singularity of absolute Self.

Your statement is absurd even after clarification. I really can’t see what you are getting at.

26 August 2013 11:17 AM

Lois – Lois: Scientists investigate and are aware of science’s “shadow side.” Religious people are seldom aware of religion’s shadow side, yet they promote it as if it were pure.

You do understand of course, that your data as regards “Religious people”, is vastly skewed towards those that make the news, and the study is heavily tainted with observer bias?

25 August 2013 06:52 AM

LilySmith – Why should I give up my faith in God for a belief in man trying to figure out our awesome existence but getting it wrong time and again? I have no problem accepting scientific fact, but understand science is the work of fallible and biased men and women.

PLaClair – Because in the thousands of years of human history, theistic belief has not contributed one speck of knowledge or produced even one advance in science.

Fascinating but not surprising that Smith and McKay completely ignore this crucial point and all that follows from it.

That is because it is patently absurd.

Just how old is this god named “science”?

26 August 2013 08:29 AM

brmckay – Write4U, I think that you are mainly in opposition to organized religion. Why do you call this atheism? It’s seems more political than philosophical.

Write4U – They are threefold; scientifically, I am opposed to the claim that the properties of God (intentional being) are known., They are experienced. Difference!
philosophically, I am opposed to it’s claimed exclusive Truth. Not proven. Difference!
politically, we only need look back in history of the “benefits” of religions. Holy wars instead of recognizing our commonality !

brmckay – Do these same arguments apply to a zen monk sitting in zazen, learning to still his “monkey mind”? Or, to a contemplative hermit cultivating a direct relationship with the infinite? 

If I conceive of Existence as Divine, Alive and not other than Self; what harm do I cause the purpose of science?

Write4U – No they do not, their connection to the Universe (deity) is their personal experience, uniquely only unto themselves. I do it myself as do we all.
And it is true, my main fear is the political power of “organized religion”. I cannot conceive of life in a theocracy that refuses to recognize science and philosophy.

I call myself an atheist because I do not think the popular concepts of God and the philosophical analysis of Potential are the same thing even as they function the same way. We all agree on the concept of an ultimate Wholeness. It is religion that cannot figure out who’s Holy-ness is the Truth, which will be found by science one day anyway, probably applying the principles of Potential. smile

I agree that I am opposed to organized religion. Scary world of entities and motivated supernatural causalities .
Science has an open book of all its discoveries and all “knowledge” about the Universe and it’s origins are in the “light of day”.
Fundamentalist Religions are “shrouded” in secrecy and mysticism.

I’m grateful that I don’t have to react to much that you have said.

I can only see a point or so that I might want to fine tune.

Write4U – We all agree on the concept of an ultimate Wholeness. It is religion that cannot figure out who’s Holy-ness is the Truth, which will be found by science one day anyway, probably applying the principles of Potential.smile

I know there is a lot of exclusivism resulting from Theological bubbles. This is a weakness especially at the popular level. The 99%. More skill at rationality would benefit everyone. But, this does not mean replacing religion with science. There are plenty of examples, both over the millennia and right here right now, of people who live their lives relating to God in balanced and sane ways. We need their wisdom.

I think it’s been said often in these threads that science as an ideal does not take sides. This applies to the ideal of religion as well. The real problem is in the weak and befuddled masses. The money grubbing capitalist, and hard line militants. The Engineers willing to apply their scientific training towards weapons of mass destructions. The Jim and Tammy Bakers of the world along with the simple minded sheep who created them. Politicians who pander to the reptilian hoards where the votes and money are.

In my opinion science clarifies the objective comprehension of the “miracle” of existence. Religion/Philosophy shapes it’s subjective meaning and applies it to human evolution. Both make up the “whole” and their marriage is essential.

25 August 2013 06:44 AM

brmckay – Science has been responsible for abominations past and present. There are more to come, guaranteed.

Equal Opportunity Curmudgeon – A half truth, which is really the worst kind of lie. Science is responsible for the aquisition and understanding of information. It’s the people who abuse that information to serve truly evil and twisted ends who are responsible for the abominations past and present. The science itself is morally neutral.

The same can’t be said about religions which on one hand claim to serve a moral high ground but if you don’t agree with somr aspect of the creed, it’s leaders take that as a license and even claim divine permission to commit the very worst atrocities in the name of whatever god or gods they believe in, and all that without even a scintilla of testable evidence to support any of their claims.

Since you have not provided a disclaimer, I will have to assume you are not representing a scientific objectivity in you second paragraph.

You have placed the ideal of scientific method outside of the field of its application. I have been trying to do the same for religious/spiritual/philosophical inquiry. This is where I ask the same terms from you.

“Worst kind of lie”?

25 August 2013 06:29 AM

brmckay – Write4U, I think that you are mainly in opposition to organized religion. Why do you call this atheism? It’s seems more political than philosophical.

Do these same arguments apply to a zen monk sitting in zazen, learning to still his “monkey mind”? Or, to a contemplative hermit cultivating a direct relationship with the infinite?

If I conceive of Existence as Divine, Alive and not other than Self; what harm do I cause the purpose of science?

Lois –  None if you keep it to yourself or to your fellow believers. But when you proselytize to non believers or use your religion to promote a political agenda, it is harmful. It’s also harmful if you expect your religion to be taught in public schools. It is harmful and disrespecful to people who have different faiths or no faith. The harm is in actions done in the name of religion.

I realize that you are generalizing, and also agree with everything except that you have not qualified “actions done” in the name of religion. I’m sure you are not talking about all action done in the name of religion.

I have not condemned science for it’s shadow side. Remember all actions taken in the name of any thing in the realm of relativity are by nature aggregates of selfish and selfless. Foolish and wise.

I know that I harp on this a lot. It is because I do not detect an adequate consideration of it in many of the comments I respond to.

23 August 2013 11:18 AM

Write4U, I think that you are mainly in opposition to organized religion. Why do you call this atheism? It’s seems more political than philosophical.

Do these same arguments apply to a zen monk sitting in zazen, learning to still his “monkey mind”? Or, to a contemplative hermit cultivating a direct relationship with the infinite?

If I conceive of Existence as Divine, Alive and not other than Self; what harm do I cause the purpose of science?

23 August 2013 10:48 AM

Science has been responsible for abominations past and present. There are more to come, guaranteed.

Hiroshima, thalidomide, Nazis experimentation on jews, the Tuskegee experiment, Bikini Atoll….

It is neither fair nor rational to condemn religion for the fallibility of human beings engaged in the finite dualistic entanglements of the relative universe.

There are tens of thousands of years of wholesome enrichment of the human experience resulting from our instinctive intuition of the divine. We have called it supernatural because that is the framework available. There is no harm it that. The term “supernatural” is not the source of the problems being cited as conclusive evidence of the inferiority of theistic world views.

First start with a fair and honest assessment of what God might be. Write4U has graciously re-introduced the term Potential. This is the beginning of a journey that both science and religion can undertake together.

In the beginning, “The Word”.
In the beginning, “Emergence from Potential”.

I will now suggest an image from intuition that at the beginning the primordial “Emergent” phenomena is undivided “Awareness”, having the nature of it’s origins in the singularity of infinite potential. It is now the the ground of infinite potential otherness. From this primal potential of otherness cascades the Universe of relativity. This would be an honest conception of God that science can work with. All stages, aspects, and derivation must be considered as the Entirety. The eternal present moment.

Working from both ends towards the middle gives everybody something to do.

Advertisements
This entry was posted in logs and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.