A'ight. I guess this falls in the category "essays".
I happen to have a rich belief system, or faith, call it what you want,
and it happens to give room to science as well.
I believe that there is a spiritual level to life : that we have "souls" and relate to each other and the world
in "invisible" ways - I believe in a partial destiny, or at least some general "direction" - call that causality.
But ONE thing can break the chain of causality : conscious choice.
I believe many phenomenons are out of our perception - and that these limits certainly hide whole new sciences and
perceptions of the world(s). I don't believe in a "God" as a ruling figure sitting on a throne and dictating moral dogma.
I believe morality is a human invention.
I believe reality serves a purpose : that it serves the purpose of.. transcending itself.
The universe is meant to die someday. But there is something, inside of it, that changes it's nature
willingly, day after day : something that "troubles" the continuity of reality - the causality chain.
Life, and especially, conscious life.
I believe the purpose of life is to further "win" the universe's death and "seed" something else,
ultimately.
With these in mind, I can use the best of Plato and Greek philosophy, buddhism,
not fully reject monotheism or God centered religions - I just think they want to attach
a face to something faceless and it bothers me.
But I end up respecting life as my #1 value AND accepting Darwinism, Mechanics, Quantum Physics,
as PARTS of a picture too big for me. Might as well enjoy it in respect of all actors
of this belief system. Including the sun : I have really neat sunglasses,
but it still seems to be there.
"Could science and religion walk hand-in-hand?" is the same as asking "Could people be absolutely tolerant with each other?"
The answer is no. Won't happen.
Explanation:
Perception of reality - POR. (c)
It is essential for people to agree on their POR in order to be able to communicate. It is like spoken or written language. You cannot communicate if you don't know what the words mean. In order for science and religion to work together you'd have to marginalize one to the point where it doesn't matter, accept one as a personal addition to the POR and the other as the general POR. That would mean accepting that other people may have their own additions to the general POR meaning that your own personal POR may not be the absolute truth.
That is to say that in order for science and religion to work together religious people would have to also accept all other religions. Non religious people can easily accept all religions and religious people when the latter are keeping religion to themselves and not interfering with things that influence other people.
Argo, your post is titled with Religion and Science in mind. but your written question seems to be more related to Spirituality and Science.
Spirituality != Religion, but you can still concern God with Spirituality.
So what I'm getting at is, simply, No. Science and Religion don't/can't walk hand in hand (especially if you apply their rules to one another), but I believe there's no good reason why Spirituality and Science cannot.
It's more a reaction to the last bits of discussion with Jade,
in that thread about the Sun -
we clearly have similar intentions, for example understanding each other,
but opposite beliefs for one.
And Darwin, by the way, classified the nature based on his fait and respect of creation
This is quite funny/paradoxical - the evolutionism vs "intelligent design" debate
is so moot it hurts when seen this way.
quote:
"Could science and religion walk hand-in-hand?" is the same as asking "Could people be absolutely tolerant with each other?"
I guess I am in a very peaceful mood Because that pretty much is the point -
although aspects of Jade's talk are, to me, a denial of facts, or too loosely
based on assumptions - the core intention behind her approach and mine is the very same.
argo: Commenting your first post again. I'm a bit at a loss on how you can advocate reason and spirituality at the same time. To me spirituality is very close to religion and superstition which in my mind all fall into the same mythical pot of unreasonable, unargumented belief.
A few comments/opinions on these topics:
Phenomena that are out of perception. There are things that influence us and thus are perceivable/measurable and there are things that don't influence us.
Morality is a human invention - agreed.
I'd say that reality serves the purpose of moving and changing trough time. Whether this is beneficial to us or not is irrelevant. We define progress though what is beneficial to us. By reality I mean everything that is anything that influences anything.
Conscious thought is in it's most basic level mechanics. There is absolutely nothing special about conscious thought other than it's complexity. It is an arrogant thing to believe that we humans are somehow better or special because of something that we have defined as conscious thought. To something or someone much more complex our conscious thought would seem as simple as a falling rock is to us and probably as irrelevant.
I don't think partial destiny is possible. I believe in absolute destiny. Destiny that is unfathomable, unchanging and absolute. Influenced by nothing and foreseeable by nothing and no one. Even something that is completely outside of the system couldn't influence it because then it would become a part of the same system and in the context on destiny it would mean that it had always been a part of that system. Destiny involves everything. From the smallest of particles to the biggest of entities (every 'conscious thought' too). So you could say I don't believe in destiny.
The difference between something and someone is only in complexity.
edit: argo: posts like mine are an excellent source for conflicts because of the our conflicting POR-s but don't take it too seriously But try to prove me wrong of course
I totally take it seriously man : this is WAR, I am gonna slap your face red with my mighty trout.
You should PHEAR trouts.
Especially mighty ones like that.
Seriously?
quote:
There is absolutely nothing special about conscious thought other than it's complexity.
There is CHOICE. By the way, have you read about the Schroedinger's cat
and quantum states? Parallel realities may exist for every single solitary choice,
by some quantum physicians.
Faced with two different, possible versions of reality, any conscious being is able to
pick one or the other, thus always altering the continuity of causality as a whole.
Were you truely preconditioned to make choice A instead of choice B?
Is a difficult topic in and of itself, but I do not think. Because of the very notion
of "randomness" : some events, on a quantum scale, are not predictable
(position of electrons at any given time - it doesn't obey to an observable pattern).
So if some events in the causality chain are NOT predictable, by no means can the faith of the universe
be truely predictable.
But the real bridges between spirituality and science
have been established.. by Plato and Socrates : they both believe in a spiritual world,
but they have been the founders of ALL subsequent non-religious reflexions on the
topic :
quote:
Socrates's idea that reality is unavailable to those who use their senses is what puts him at odds with the common man, and with common sense. Socrates says that he who sees with his eyes is blind, and this idea is most famously captured in his allegory of the cave, and more explicitly in his description of the divided line.
In no way my belief that nature abides to rules that I can observe and quantify (science)
does contradict, or proves, anything regarding the supernatural or the divine
It is my stupid belief that all things actually follow very strict set of rules thus everything is 'destined' to happen. Whether we are going to find out the exact 'pattern' which electrons' movements obey remains to be seen.
I don't think that all mathematically sound looking theories should should be taken very seriously. If a wind blows hard in a valley with only one tree and no one to see whether the tree falls down or not it doesn't mean the tree is suddenly in two simultaneous states now. It just means that we don't know what happened to it. If we can't understand the complexity of a situation it doesn't mean something mystical is going to happen. If we really understood the system we would know whether the atom decays or not.
I am not saying "mystical" : I am saying unaccountable for by science as it is.
Shortest post EVER??
quote: Arthurio said:
Morality is a human invention - agreed.
Are you sure about that? So you do no think that we, as humans, have the concept of Good and Evil in our genes somehow? Couldn't it partly be what made us different from apes in the first place?
As you know Argo, I do adhere to your theory (although spirituality would be the correct term to use here, as mentioned before); the way you approach it makes sense to me, and I "like" this idea of the Universe "transcending" itself (although it is quite a scary though, because what happens next?)
Anyway, my point is I think science and spirituality do work hand in hand. Nature and spirituality are just one thing... The real trouble I have is to understand how some people can believe that a book written by a bunch of guys 2000 years ago could actually be the Truth about Everything. This goes way beyond me... I can understand the purpose of the process; after all, every civilisation has fulfilled the need of justifying and validating its actions by making out myths and legends (based on elements of facts, agreed, but myths and legends nonetheless) and I cannot see for a minute the difference between the legend of King Arthur and the one of Jesus.
... *half expecting to be struck dead by a lightning here*...
I am not too aware of other religions, but Christianity is to me an anti-religion altogether, as it is based on a lie, run by racist, non-adapted, greedy, two-faced liars.
Sorry to drift slightly out of topic here...
To come back on the subject, surely you can name at least one more appropriate religion?
quote:
Are you sure about that? So you do no think that we, as humans, have the concept of Good and Evil in our genes somehow?
Couldn't it partly be what made us different from apes in the first place?
Yes, and no. Actually : we are not ONLY animals, but we are, first and foremost, animals.
I think that, in our genes, we are engineered to do the same things as other mammal species : mate, hunt, prey on, parent, etc.
The bias of moral standards is introduced by something else :
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Our kids need YEARS to develop to the adult stage. So they require appropriate bonding of two parents
during that time, thus, we need to enforce SOCIAL STRUCTURES to protect that (thing called family).
Look at the world around you : shaken families make for unhappy kids who turn into adults with difficulties to adapt.
The Bible was a wonderful mass control tool at some point - the point when sparse groups of humans had to connect
in order to evolve further.
But the very same bible HAS grown obsolete in parts - and still applies in many other parts : thus, people
trying to read it AS IS do not live in the now (and in my beliefs, by pushing reality, have it bounce back and hard at them).
quote:
I am not too aware of other religions, but Christianity is to me an anti-religion altogether,
Wow, a tigress in action Stop that honey, we REALLY can't get married this week.
I have the same difficulties as you - but I can't generalize this way, I refuse.
The need to believe was discussed in another thread as something good - the object of that belief, to me, should not be
a "human faced God". But I respect their freedom to believe in that if they want to.
You summed up the problem pretty well : some people need a belief so far OFF of reality
because... reality hurts, scares, and bites. And it does.
But it does in your garden as well everytime an ant dissects a living spider, for instance - it is MEANT
to be this way. You and I just happen to be able to accept it.
It amazes me that some cannot think in the infinite instead of the finite.
The revelation of man as human set apart from the animals is distinctly visible in so many ways.
Created man is beautiful, unique and an intelligent species. I cannot gaze into the eyes of an animal and see human love reflected back to me. I cannot communicate love in the sexual way to an animal. Animals are not called to dignity. To be animal is to give into instincts that show no thought to moral reason. Yes? human man can show what it is to be an animal when he gives into his actions contrary to his true human nature. Man can become ugly, irrational, evil when he gives into his animalistic nature. Animal and man are opposite. One acts with no will and the other does.
Yes?. Man is a rational animal set apart with the capability to reason. Man has his ethos. Animals do not.
Animals are set apart to remind us & to show us what it is to give in to our animalistic desires with no thought to moral standards.
Do frogs, bunnies, sheep, horses, dogs, cats face each other during the sexual act? Can they look into each other?s eyes and show love penetrating to the essence of a person. No. We are the only creatures who do so.
You who have wives or husbands or significant others, are you committed to them in love only. Why? If you have no moral standard or believe in no creed, what is to stop you or partner from acting upon you desires contrary to moral standards set up by society. Are you then ruled by society trends or code of ethics? If you follow a code of ethics, why?
There are many post on past forums regarding faith and reason. On organized religion vs atheism, the spiritual soul, God etc..so you can check the archives. There is not anything anyone can post that has not been dissected, rehashed, discussed and debated and poked fun at regarding the God of the bible. You cannot change anyone?s view about God. If one prefers to base their lives on scientific math equations, so be it. You can just tell persons what you believe here and when they post, you see why they tick the way they do. From what I gather here on some posters, they once were believers. Something in their lives happened to make them loose faith. What I have found to be the majority is that they have reasoned God out of existence. They, I are free to disagree with each other. Here, you may be put down and called, ignorant, spoon fed, uneducated, dumb, silly, stupid, etc?which I have been called many times just because I believe in Jesus. It doesn?t bother me. I always love to discuss God because that means he is always on my mind. I may not discuss very intellectually or come across very well in my post regarding words, but I have a sincere heart. Everything I post is me. I am very passionate about the spiritual life and I am sure others on this forum are in many different ways and avenues that are not of the Christian God. There are very few Christians here who debate athiest. I would say Gideon and I usually are the ones who try to explain the Christan way. Majority are athiest.
Absolutely, Jade - controversy is not BAD : it is room for exchange, having the courage to stand criticism
is ok. Both ways. Sincerely. You are welcome to this debate as any other, I am expressing my point of view
and welcoming yours.
At least, by now, I (hopefully) have managed to show you that expectations about me can hide surprising things,
so in the same vein : I am just saying expectations can be disappointed, and the truth may not always be "just" what we see
or believe to be true.
Regarding this question :
quote:
If you follow a code of ethics, why?
I adressed a little part of that one already.
Well, I am a person who has a rich dating life, I could well spend the next 50 years meeting hot girl after hot girl,
in full respect and honesty, and enjoy the experience. I am "created" with desires, intense, this is my instinct : in no way
does it differ from an animal's instinct - my carnal self wants to eat, sleep, mate, and I do not see it as sin - I see it as the nature
given to me, in your perspective, this desire would be a "gift from God".
Inside me is an animal that I accept as part of my nature.
I want children though, and a child needs two healthy parents in a healthy relationship to grow ok.
I want the best for my children. So when I find the right mate, believe me, she will be queen in my kingdom - and my partners
generally do receive much dedication from me.
So my ethics here will come into play in "family" terms to allow the mind/soul of my children to blossom - FIRST and FOREMOST.
I think "ethics" are a society thing, not a thing "delivered by creation" : but desires, drives, anger, passion, etc.
These are flesh and this very flesh comes from what many, including you, refer to as "the creation".
In other words : your God built me with desires, why would he do so if I was meant to repress those
all the time? But since I have human fellows, I must respect their freedom - and that is where ethics are needed.
This said, some animals are extremely attached to the humans close to them : there is that cat, completely wild
to 90% of the population, "Chipie". Whenever I am around, she will come to say "hello" to me and she DOES
have ways, very clear, to do this.
I once saw a cat tamer, weird as it gets, able to communicate the emotional language of cats : closing your eyes
is equivalent to smiling to them. When they put their neck in your hand, they are saying "hello" because they deposite
their scent on you and can easilly recognize you all through the "caress" stage. He could talk to them so perfectly
they would do all sorts of wild figures for him - although cats are independent and "snob" animals in essence.
.....
Now, kimson brought up the most important question to me : "if the purpose of life is to shake and change the universe,
and transcend it, then what's next?"
From: Happy Hunting Grounds... Insane since: Mar 2001
posted 02-22-2008 10:32
quote:Do frogs, bunnies, sheep, horses, dogs, cats face each other during the sexual act? Can they look into each other?s eyes and show love penetrating to the essence of a person. No. We are the only creatures who do so.
Chimpanzees have been filmed doing this, so no, we are not the only creatures who do so. You really need to inform yourself better. All forms of whales and porpoises can and do, as well as dolphines.
quote:You who have wives or husbands or significant others, are you committed to them in love only. Why? If you have no moral standard or believe in no creed, what is to stop you or partner from acting upon you desires contrary to moral standards set up by society. Are you then ruled by society trends or code of ethics? If you follow a code of ethics, why?
I follow a code of ethics.
You ask why.
That is very easy to answer. Because through evaluation and re-evaluation of my experiences, I have come to the conclusion that acting according to a set of ethics that is positive in nature has more beneficial advantageous in the long run, then the opposite.
This, of course, only applies to me.
As for "moral standards set up by society", I hold little from such. I believe that such is mostly for those who have very little ability, etc to evaluate themselves and their experiences rationally, and form a code of ethics from such to follow.
WebShaman | The keenest sorrow (and greatest truth) is to recognize ourselves as the sole cause of all our adversities.
- Sophocles
There is, of course, the NOMA approach put forward by Gould.
However, more important to me is not that there is not overlap, but that in cases of overlap, one has to take priority over the other.
So long as science is not ignored in order to adhere to dogma, there is no problem. The problem comes when reality is simply brushed away in favor of primitive literature. Religion must be able to adapt to our increased understanding of reality, or else it simply looks foolish. We see this, of course, in all of the anti-evolution uproar, among many other things.
So *can* they? Absolutely. *Do* they? Depends entirely on the people in question.
The whole "how do you if ethics if not from god" thing is ridiculously old and over played. Refer to the past 20 threads about the subject if you need an answer on that one yet again...
posted 02-21-2008 00:21
