Topic: Engaging theism & engaging Creationism (Page 1 of 1)

An interesting take.

quote:

---

I want to flesh out this distinction to make clear why I am relatively sanguine when it comes to scientists who believe in God, though I disagree with them on this question, as opposed to the much greater alarm I exhibit toward those self-styled scientists who espouse Creationism.

---

http://scienceblogs.com/gnxp/2008/06/engaging_theism_engaging_creat.php

___________________________________________________________________________
?It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong.? Voltaire

OOooer, strangely enough, just to-day as I was walking around Liverpool city centre, a young chap approached me and asked me something to the effect of " Have I met Jesus yet" or "Have I let something or other into my life"? In an appropriately sincere way in an American accent.
Turns out he is a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. He had a badge saying he was a minister or lector or some such preachy-esque title.

So we had a wee chat and I was rather flattered that he wanted to save me from, well stuff! We both quoted the Bible back and forth and I was impressed by his sincerity. He wanted to carry on talking to me but having just received a cell call from my sister to meet her I had to leave.

Here's the thing. I gave him my mobile phone number so he could call and arrange a meeting probably at my home to talk further about God. He gave me some references to reading material I should/could read prior to our next meet. This was after establishing that I think every person has their own idea of what God is, if anything, and I prefer to use the term spirit or Great Spirit.
So I asked him to listen to Miles Davis "Kind of Blue" if possible before we meet, and to consider that If God is the light, then humans can be equated to panes of glass. When the light shines through them the light takes on the colour of the glass.

I think Mormons believe in Creationism so I will be interested to hear what he has to say. I want to be very forceful will him/them, about the sincerity of my beliefs but I do not want to criticise his beliefs or shatter his dreams.

Just thought I'd add that as it seemed to me to be a coincidence.


Those who look for monsters should look to it that
they do not become monsters. For when you gaze
long into the abyss, the abyss also gazes into you.

Mormons simultaneously believe it's impossible to know which is the proper sect of Christianity to join and that you should join their sect. That is, they're insane. Apart from that, all the mormons I've ever met (maybe two?) are pretty cool people.

A fascinating read.

Thanks for posting the link, NoJive.

I find myself mostly in agreement with it.

WebShaman | The keenest sorrow (and greatest truth) is to recognize ourselves as the sole cause of all our adversities.
- Sophocles

quote:

---

reisio said:

Mormons simultaneously believe it's impossible to know which is the proper sect of Christianity to join and that you should join their sect. That is, they're insane. Apart from that, all the mormons I've ever met (maybe two?) are pretty cool people.

---

You want insanity? How about Jehovah's Witnesses? There are very few here in Korea, but I met one on the subway once quite a few years ago and he told me that only 144,000 people are destined to go to heaven (this is the traditional number of the twelve tribes of Israel, by the way). I'm pretty sure there are more than 144,000 Jehovah's Witnesses in the world, and when I asked him about this incongruity he said something to the effect of, "we can't know if we are destined or not, so we should live our lives as if we were." I then asked him that if I were destined, wouldn't that mean that I would go to heaven no matter what I did--and that if I weren't destined I would not be going to heaven no matter what? He told me I was looking at it the wrong way. Hmm.


___________________________
Suho: www.liminality.org | Cell 270 | Sig Rotator | the Fellowship of Sup

Righto, if they ask me to join, I'll hit them with the classic Groucho response.
Sorry NJ I don't want to hijack the thread with my meanderings.


Those who look for monsters should look to it that
they do not become monsters. For when you gaze
long into the abyss, the abyss also gazes into you.

quote:

---

He told me I was looking at it the wrong way. Hmm.

---

Ermmm...don't all religions say that, though

If you do not see things our way, then you are looking at it the wrong way.

WebShaman | The keenest sorrow (and greatest truth) is to recognize ourselves as the sole cause of all our adversities.
- Sophocles

quote:

---

WebShaman said:

quote:He told me I was looking at it the wrong way. Hmm.



Ermmm...don't all religions say that, though

---

No not all religions.

.



-- not necessarily stoned... just beautiful.


(Edited by WebShaman on 07-03-2008 20:35)

quote:

---

hyperbole said:

No not all religions..

---

agreed. I was brought up in a Baptist household. I went to church on Sunday's and did all that. During Sunday school class I would ask questions about things that didn't make sense to me. I got the response "That was God's will" or "We are not to question the actions of God". Well, that didn't sit well with me.

Not too long ago I converted after being totally fed up with religion in a whole. I finally found something that when I have a question I get a straight clear cut answer. And when I don't really agree with something or don't fully understand something, I'm not looked at as a heretic. It's a nice feeling.

However, in response to NJ post and the article. I agree with a lot of the article.

quote:

---

I want to flesh out this distinction to make clear why I am relatively sanguine when it comes to scientists who believe in God, though I disagree with them on this question, as opposed to the much greater alarm I exhibit toward those self-styled scientists who espouse Creationism. The former concerns disputes over philosophical questions, while the latter concerns disputes over scientific ones

---

Good point. Someone that is in the scientific field should realize that the idea of a "super natural being" creating something is not logical. Isn't science based on logic? For the most part anyway? I know that some of it is more categorized as "philosophy" since it can't really be proven, but it's still based on logic. Like quantum physics and "dark matter". Can't really prove that it's there except on paper really.

Later,

C:\

quote:

---

hyperbole said:

quote:WebShaman said:quote:He told me I was looking at it the wrong way. Hmm.Ermmm...don't all religions say that, thoughNo not all religions..-- not necessarily stoned... just beautiful. (Edited by WebShaman on 07-03-2008 20:35)

---

Oh, I see.

Then there is no punishment by not being a believer in that religion, right?

What religion did you say it was?

WebShaman | The keenest sorrow (and greatest truth) is to recognize ourselves as the sole cause of all our adversities.
- Sophocles

quote:

---

WebShaman said:

What religion did you say it was?

---

I'm going to take a guess and say Unitarian Universalism, but I could be way off base with that...

I'm curious, too, CPrompt.


___________________________
Suho: www.liminality.org | Cell 270 | Sig Rotator | the Fellowship of Sup

quote:

---

Suho1004 said:

I'm curious, too, CPrompt.

---

you mean what religion I converted to? I converted to Nichiren Daishonin Buddhism. I can't speak for hyperbole though

Later,

C:\

quote:

---

WebShaman said:

quote:
hyperbole said:

quote:WebShaman said:quote:He told me I was looking at it the wrong way. Hmm.Ermmm...don't all religions say that, thoughNo not all religions..-- not necessarily stoned... just beautiful. (Edited by WebShaman on 07-03-2008 20:35)



Oh, I see.

Then there is no punishment by not being a believer in that religion, right?

What religion did you say it was?

---

I was thinking specifically of the Baha'i Faith. I have also talked to a number of people who were Buddhist and Hindu and have found similar attitudes in those religions. However, Baha'i is the one I'm most familiar with, and yes, as you put it, there is 'no punishment' for being a non-believer. In fact one of the tenets of the Baha'i Faith is no proselytization. There are multiple paths to God, fulfillment, understanding, whatever you want to call it. No one has the right to declare they have the only right way to achieve these. In fact it is even recognized that within the Baha'i Faith different people will have differing interpretations of the same thing and while it is permissible to discuss various view-points, arguing is forbidden.

To illustrate my point, allow me to quote one of the central figures of the faith
"Every phrase has seventy interpretations." Then he goes on to say that each of them can be correct for different people.

.



-- not necessarily stoned... just beautiful.

If arguing is forbidden, then it is again a case of "If you do not see things our way, then you are looking at it the wrong way."

The key word being forbidden.

Also, Buddhism also has things contained within it that are forbidden.

WebShaman | The keenest sorrow (and greatest truth) is to recognize ourselves as the sole cause of all our adversities.
- Sophocles

quote:

---

WebShaman said:

Also, Buddhism also has things contained within it that are forbidden.

---

sure does. murder, theft, immoral acts... These actions that are "forbidden" as they go against one goal of Buddhism, which is to be a better person. How could someone be a better person if they are killing for no reason, stealing money from someone, committing immoral acts?

Later,

C:\

(Edited by CPrompt on 07-04-2008 21:33)

Yes, but who exactly is deciding what constitutes being a better person?

And if someone is not a "better" person, then what are they?

When talking about most types of belief systems like this, there is always a "good, positive, correct, right, etc" way, and a "negative, bad, evil, wrong, etc" way.

This is what I am pointing out.

For systems that do the Path to Enlightenment thing (re: Higher Consciousness, etc), there is also an opposite one. Ying and Yang.

So who decides what leads to Higher Consciousness, Enlightenment, etc, and the opposite path (total damnation, oblivion, etc)?

WebShaman | The keenest sorrow (and greatest truth) is to recognize ourselves as the sole cause of all our adversities.
- Sophocles

quote:

---

WebShaman said:

Yes, but who exactly is deciding what constitutes being a better person?

---

You do. Buddhism is bringing forth what is inside you already to the forefront. And yes, there are always, always an opposite. Without one, there can not be the other.

Me personally, I was not a real happy person. Why was this? Because I had no self-confidence and had low self esteem. However, this may not be the reason that others are "unhappy" or practice Buddhism (or any other religion). There is nothing wrong with someone that does not practice Buddhism though. It is not for everyone. Who it is right for, is the person that "gives it a shot" and likes it. Which is what I did. No one came to my house or up to me and said "Hey, have you ever heard of Buddhism?" or told me "If you don't practice this form of Buddhism, then you are destined to an eternity of pain and suffering". I sought it out. I found people that I could talk to about it.

quote:

---

WebShaman said:

And if someone is not a "better" person, then what are they?

---

Well, I think we all can agree on what that person is. Whether they practice Buddhism or any other religion. It doesn't matter. A "good" person is a "good" person. The method that someone finds "happiness" is up to them. I work with a lot of Christians and they are pretty happy people. I'm good friends with a lot of them. Do I think they are practicing wrong or destined to fail in life? Nope.

My view on religion is that one should seek to be a solid good person while we are alive. There's no evidence on an "afterlife" so we can't really say for sure what happens to us when we die. What we can be sure of while we are alive, is how we live.

quote:

---

WebShaman said:
So who decides what leads to Higher Consciousness, Enlightenment, etc, and the opposite path (total damnation, oblivion, etc)?

---

Again, I would have to say yourself. I don't really get the "Higher Consciousness" but when we talk about "Enlightenment", Nichiren and Shakyamuni referred to it as "seeing the world for what it was and ridding yourself of the sufferings that control our lives". This is not say that being a Buddha that you will not have bad days or problems. But you should gain the wisdom to see your problems for what they are and not dwell on them.

As Ikeda wrote

quote:

---

True happiness lies in building a self that stands dignified and indomitable.

---

Later,

C:\

So we return to "If you do not see things our way, then you are looking at it the wrong way."

BTW -

quote:

---

You do. Buddhism is bringing forth what is inside you already to the forefront. And yes, there are always, always an opposite. Without one, there can not be the other.

---

That is part of the belief, yes.

But there is much, much more than just that.

quote:

---

Nichiren and Shakyamuni referred to it as "seeing the world for what it was and ridding yourself of the sufferings that control our lives".

---

So they are saying it. And what if I disagree with what they are saying, and instead say a different way leads to the same thing?

So they are then wrong?

Or would they consider us both to be right, even though the things that I believe lead to the same thing are diametrically opposed to theirs, and states that their way actually leads to the opposite?

WebShaman | The keenest sorrow (and greatest truth) is to recognize ourselves as the sole cause of all our adversities.
- Sophocles

some good points.

quote:

---

WebShaman said:

And what if I disagree with what they are saying, and instead say a different way leads to the same thing?

---

Well, like I said, Buddhism is not for everyone. It is a "method" that will achieve something. Not "the only method".

Let's take this approach. You do some programming right? Well let's say that you and I both are writing a PHP script. Within it, you like to use nested IF statements. Me? I like to use a "Switch" statement. Does it do the same thing? Yep. Is one better than the other? Nope. We get to the same resolve using two different methods.

I have not been taught that Buddhism is the only religion and the only right religion. I have been taught by my mentor that we should not look upon other religions as being false. We should respect others religious beliefs.

Later,

C:\

There is a difference between respecting others' beliefs, and holding them to be as important and relevent, if not more, than one's own - in essence, believing in them.

I do understand what you are saying, of course. However, even Buddhism contains the "If you do not see things our way, then you are looking at it the wrong way". This is because Buddhism purports to contain the Way to Enlightenment.

quote:

---

Buddhism is based on the teachings of the Gautama Buddha, who lived in parts of what is now Nepal and northeast India circa the fifth century BCE. While there is disagreement between denominations over the Buddha's teachingsRon Gallant nearly all Buddhists recognize some version of the Tipitaka ("Three Baskets"), though it plays a far more central role in Theravada than in Mahayana. Also, Mahayana Buddhists recognize a set of texts called the Mahayana Sutras which Theravadins do not accept.

* Both accept the Buddha as their teacher.
* Both accept the middle way, dependent origination, the four noble truths and the noble eightfold path, in theory, though in practice these have little or no importance in some traditions.
* Both accept that members of the laity and the sangha can pursue the path toward enlightenment (bodhi).
* Both consider buddhahood to be the highest attainment; however Theravadins consider the nirvana (nibbana to the Theravadins) attained by arahants as identical to that attained by the Buddha himself, as there is only one type of nirvana. According to Theravadins, a buddha is someone who has discovered the path all by himself and has taught it to others.

---

From Buddhism

Now, the definition of what buddhahood is, or nirvana, or even what a path is to this state, is all dependent on what Buddhism is telling you. This basically means that they are telling you what something is, and you either have to believe it, or you are looking at it the wrong way. It also assumes that someone who has discovered this path can teach it to others (as the Buddha supposedly has and left behind the WAY to discover the Path that he discovered).

However, I do not believe that this is truly possible. I think each individual has to discover their own Path, and that this Path is soley valid and walkable for that person only. I do not think that there is one set of teachings that can reach any other individual and show them their Path, other than the one that has discovered them for themselves.

Showing others the way to walk your Path, only ends up with lots of people following in your footsteps, and not necessarily reaching the state that you have, because your Path is not really a way for others to find and reach the state that you have.

Each Path is unique, each way is unique, as each life is unique.

Of course, you are free to believe differently;

But if you do, I think you are looking at it the wrong way

WebShaman | The keenest sorrow (and greatest truth) is to recognize ourselves as the sole cause of all our adversities.
- Sophocles

quote:

---

WebShaman said:

If arguing is forbidden, then it is again a case of "If you do not see things our way, then you are looking at it the wrong way."

---

I would say you are confusing the words 'arguing' and 'discussion'. It is perfectly permissible to hold and discuss different points of view. I try not to enter into discussions with the attitude that I'm going to convince you tha my point of view is correct and yours is wrong. That to me is arguing.

.



-- not necessarily stoned... just beautiful.

I think that perhaps you are not aware of what the definition of an Argument is

quote:

---

a. A discussion in which disagreement is expressed; a debate.
b. A quarrel; a dispute.
c. Archaic A reason or matter for dispute or contention: "sheath'd their swords for lack of argument" Shakespeare.
2.
a. A course of reasoning aimed at demonstrating truth or falsehood: presented a careful argument for extraterrestrial life.
b. A fact or statement put forth as proof or evidence; a reason: The current low mortgage rates are an argument for buying a house now.
c. A set of statements in which one follows logically as a conclusion from the others.

---

From Definition of Argument

The fact is, that a disagreement which is expressed is indeed an argument, even if it is done softly and without heated emotions.

A Discussion

quote:

---

1. Consideration of a subject by a group; an earnest conversation.
2. A formal discourse on a topic; an exposition.

---

From Definition of Discussion is talking about a subject, and it is often serious in nature, but does not contain DISAGREEMENT.

WebShaman | The keenest sorrow (and greatest truth) is to recognize ourselves as the sole cause of all our adversities.
- Sophocles

quote:

---

WebShaman said:

I think that perhaps you are not aware of what the definition of an Argument is

---

You're probably correct.



The point I was trying to make is that there are religions which recognize that different people will have different belief and you will not be told you are 'going to hell' for having a different belief.

.



-- not necessarily stoned... just beautiful.

quote:

---

The point I was trying to make is that there are religions which recognize that different people will have different belief and you will not be told you are 'going to hell' for having a different belief.

---

Yes, I agree!

However, this

quote:

---

If you do not see things our way, then you are looking at it the wrong way

---

is still valid.

Religions do not allow room for themselves to be wrong.

WebShaman | The keenest sorrow (and greatest truth) is to recognize ourselves as the sole cause of all our adversities.
- Sophocles

quote:

---

WebShaman said:

Of course, you are free to believe differently;

But if you do, I think you are looking at it the wrong way

---

hypocrite

I think that one thing is, is that we have to ask why we study and/or practice a certain religion at all.

Even WebShaman by arguing his point is kind of saying "you are looking at it the wrong way". Which is fine. By arguing...discussing...or whatever our "point of view" helps us realize and better understand what it is that we believe and why we believe it.

quote:

---

WebShaman said:

This basically means that they are telling you what something is, and you either have to believe it, or you are looking at it the wrong way.

---

This isn't totally true though. I don't believe everything that someone tells me about Buddhism. Shakyamuni taught what he knew. Someone can not teach something that they do not know. It's impossible. If you don't buy into any or all of it, then so be it. Maybe the method for you to understand it, lies in a different method.

I once had a great guitar instructor. His best benefit was that he could have 5 students studying the same exact piece. However, he would teach the piece differently to each person to match the playing style of that student.

I'm gonna leave that open and continue. I think we have bashed this enough. It's an endless battle and we could go on for years about this and not solve anything.

Later,

C:\

quote:

---

In fact it is even recognized that within the Baha'i Faith different people will have differing interpretations of the same thing and while it is permissible to discuss various view-points, arguing is forbidden.

To illustrate my point, allow me to quote one of the central figures of the faith
"Every phrase has seventy interpretations." Then he goes on to say that each of them can be correct for different people.

---

This is the view of Chrisitanity view of scripture as well.

quote:

---

Let's take this approach. You do some programming right? Well let's say that you and I both are writing a PHP script. Within it, you like to use nested IF statements. Me? I like to use a "Switch" statement. Does it do the same thing? Yep. Is one better than the other? Nope. We get to the same resolve using two different methods.

---

This can be true to a degree, but why not help someone get the better method to enlightenment to help them along. In some soul searching one's witness to faith or degree of spiritual plateau can open the mind/soul.

quote:

---

do not think that there is one set of teachings that can reach any other individual and show them their Path, other than the one that has discovered them for themselves.

Showing others the way to walk your Path, only ends up with lots of people following in your footsteps, and not necessarily reaching the state that you have, because your Path is not really a way for others to find and reach the state that you have.

Each Path is unique, each way is unique, as each life is unique.

---

Here too. This can be applied to different sects of Christianity..all leading to the same revelation. But what if a person is not the sharpest tool in the shead and cannot connect the dots or get a revelation pertaining to his or own life in regard to meaning of it. Does he make the best of what is given in a way of IQ. Not everyone is given a blueprint to find a path..What then?

A

quote:

---

"good" person is a "good" person. The method that someone finds "happiness" is up to them. I work with a lot of Christians and they are pretty happy people. I'm good friends with a lot of them. Do I think they are practicing wrong or destined to fail in life? Nope.

My view on religion is that one should seek to be a solid good person while we are alive. There's no evidence on an "afterlife" so we can't really say for sure what happens to us when we die. What we can be sure of while we are alive, is how we live.

---

Well...what is your interpertation of "a good person"? And in regard to method, I can feel happy and good if I love another woman's husband and I feel euphoric and good about it. If I dabble in stolen goods, it makes me happy when I attain the worth of these goods and I may personally feel nothing is wrong with trying to get ahead. So are there guides of faith? According to this or other faiths pursuits, why try to be concerned on how we live if while living it doesn't mean anything when we are six feet under? Like who would care if we are or were a good person here?

quote:

---

I try not to enter into discussions with the attitude that I'm going to convince you tha my point of view is correct and yours is wrong. That to me is arguing.

---

In my opinion you do this.. you put down my beliefs all the time.

quote:

---

Religions do not allow room for themselves to be wrong

---

All religions...? which ones?

(Edited by jade on 07-09-2008 20:11)

quote:

---

jade said:

Well...what is your interpertation of "a good person"? And in regard to method, I can feel happy and good if I love another woman's husband and I feel euphoric and good about it. If I dabble in stolen goods, it makes me happy when I attain the worth of these goods and I may personally feel nothing is wrong with trying to get ahead. So are there guides of faith?

---

What is my interpretation of a good person? I don't really think that is something that needs defining but...a "good person" is someone that upholds am ethical life or moral standards. You "dabble" in stolen goods and you feel "happy and good" if you love another woman's husband. These are things that not only ALL religions see as being immoral and unethical, but in general are not a good "method" of living. That's pretty logical don't you think?

quote:

---

jade said:

According to this or other faiths pursuits, why try to be concerned on how we live if while living it doesn't mean anything when we are six feet under? Like who would care if we are or were a good person here?

---

Because this life is all we can be sure of and we can control 100%. Christians are taught that as long as you follow the words and thoughts that are contained in the Bible, that they will be granted passage to a "better place", am I right? However, there is no possible way to 100% guarantee that this is the case. Not one single person has came back from the dead and told us that that is the case. You can argue that Christ is said to have been brought back from the dead but this is a topic that needs it's own thread IMO.

Later,

C:\

quote:

---

quote:Religions do not allow room for themselves to be wrong



All religions...? which ones?

---

As far as I know, all do.

I have never heard of a Religion that allows for itself to be false (wrong).

I mean, since Religions are based on Faith and Belief, it would be sort of self-defeating to say "of course, everything I just told you could be a lie".

Naturally, the next question is "so...you do not truly believe in what you just told me then? So why should I believe it?"

In other words, a Religion that allows for itself to be false (wrong), defeats itself. I can't imagine such a belief system lasting long, or spreading.

I could be wrong, however.

Anyone have some evidence to the contrary here?

WebShaman | The keenest sorrow (and greatest truth) is to recognize ourselves as the sole cause of all our adversities.
- Sophocles