Out of body religious experiences

[Rhabbi]

1) Physics is not a very controversial subject any longer. The pope bent over and took it in the ass a looooong time ago.

Physics not controversial? You must look at different science magazines than I do. Quantum physics is so far fetched that even Hawking does not understand it all.

2) Maybe he is a great teacher and has understood to keep his personal convictions separate from actually doing his job.

Or maybe he did not see the conflict. to a man of faith a study of creation in all its complexity only strengthens that faith.

3) When Newton was alive the evolution of science was at a radically different place. It was way before Shopenhaur, Nietzsche and Thomas Khun. In the age of Newton a supernatural god was still the scientifically best way to explain the nature of the world. Science evolves.

True, and perhaps it will again swing to the understanding that God is the best explanation.

4) Maybe it's not true. It sounds a bit strange that a guy with those kinds of beliefs could be hired to a position like that. Being a fundamentalist of any sort should discount him from any kind of scholarly position anywhere. I'm guessing the journalist had a go at creativity.

Actually Newton's theological writings are widely available to anyone who cares to look for them. But maybe they were all planted to try to discredit him by rival scientists.

Here is an exerpt from Newton's biography from the Oxford Encyclopedia of the Enlightenment (2002)

Theology

The need for a thorough reformation in Christianity was also an abiding feature of Newton’s thought. That Newton looked forward to a reformation instead of back to that of Protestantism signals his distance from the majority of his religious contemporaries. But for a man who saw the Trinity—and much else besides—as a blight on the Church, the view was a natural one. The more than half century Newton devoted to the study of theology was motivated by a desire to recover primitive Christianity from such corruptions. This project formed part of his commitment to the tradition of the prisca sapientia, the Renaissance idea that the ancients had possessed true knowledge about God and the world. In order to retrieve pure doctrine, Newton carried out an immense historical survey of Jewish and Christian theology. His research traced the rise of idolatry and monkery, along with the doctrinal damage done by Athanasius and his followers. A massive 425-page ecclesiastical history entitled “Of the Church” was but one product of these efforts. Surviving extensive notes and ink sketches show that he also sifted through biblical and Talmudic sources in order to reconstruct the plan of the Jerusalem Temple. Not only did he believe that the Temple and its ritual provided a backdrop to the visions of Revelation, but he also saw it, along with certain other ancient temples, as a model of the heliocentric solar system—knowledge of which the ancients had subsequently lost.

Newton discovered in the Scriptures that the Father alone is the One True God of Israel. Jesus Christ, preexistent and miraculously born, was God’s literal Son but not “very God of very God” in the Trinitarian sense. Although Newton’s Christ is not to be worshipped directly or invoked in prayer, he still occupies an elevated position, both through the atonement wrought by his shed blood and his powerful apocalyptic role at the end of time. Newton had nothing but disdain for the monks and Trinitarian “homoousians”who corrupted this pure doctrine with metaphysics and doctrinally novel terms. These same agents of false doctrine introduced the unbiblical notion of the immortality of the soul to unpin Catholic saint worship. Eternal life, Newton believed, is granted only after resurrection. Even the orthodox teaching on the Devil and demons did not stand before Newton’s reformation. Evil spirits came to represent distempers of the mind and the Devil a symbol for human lust. These latter ideas do not derive from some putative incipient rationalism, but likely from the logic of his belief in a God of dominion Whose sovereignty does not allow the existence of lesser deities, and possibly from his reading of analogous ideas in ancient rabbinic thought and contemporary accounts of idolatry.

All of these researches were carried out in private. Quite apart from the attendant social stigmatization, denial of the Trinity was a punishable offence throughout Newton’s lifetime. Newton in any case believed that the higher truths of religion were not fit for the masses. Theological knowledge was divided into “milk for babes” and “meat for elders”, and he put in the latter class an elite remnant class who alone were able to understand the deeper meanings of faith. And thus he revealed his heresy only to an inner circle of similarly-minded friends. One such adept was John Locke, himself a biblical scholar, with whom Newton discussed matters of theology through the 1690s and to whom he sent a treatise of antitrinitarian textual criticism to be published anonymously on the Continent (Newton suppressed it at the last minute for fear of exposure). Powerfully impressed by Newton’s theological acumen, Locke described him as “a very valuable man not onely for his wonderful skill in Mathematicks but in divinity too and his great knowledg in the Scriptures where in I know few his equals.” Newton’s religious outlook resembled contemporary Non-Conformity and shows strong doctrinal analogies with Judaism, pre-Nicene Christianity and contemporary biblicist antitrinitarian movements such as the Socinians.

Prophetic beliefs

Newton wrote his first large prophetic treatises in the 1670s and continued to study biblical prophecy until the end of his days. He sought to uncover the meaning of the various symbols of the Books of Daniel and Revelation, along with their fulfilments in history past and future. His hermeneutics tended to the literal and his eschatology was strongly premillenarian. He believed in the return of Christ, the restoration of the Jews to Israel, the rebuilding of the Jerusalem Temple and the coming Kingdom of God on earth—for which Newton believed one should pray every day. Such was the passion of his prophetic faith that any attempts to portray Newton as some sort of proto-deist are doomed to failure. For Newton the exact accomplishment of prophecy formed one of the most powerful arguments for a deity. On the other hand, Newton was unhappy with those who set prophetic dates and thereby brought discredit on Christianity when they failed. This did not stop Newton himself from making prophetic calculations, from which his own dates can be extrapolated. These show that he put the parousia off well beyond his own lifetime to the nineteenth or twentieth centuries at the earliest. Newton also believed that the final reformation of Christianity would not happen until around this time, a realization that likely reinforced his Nicodemism. Newton saw in prophetic hermeneutics one of the greatest intellectual challenges. For him, the interpretation of prophecy and the correct identification of the seducing power of Antichrist was seen as “no idle speculation, no matter of indifferency but a duty of the greatest moment.”

As you can see, not exactly a friend of the Roman Catholic Church or the Protestant Reformation.

[TomOfSweden]

The only overlap between an atheist and an agnostic comes because the atheist does not believe what he says. I have often said that I never met an honest atheist, and I still hold to that. There is no way you can prove there is no God, because it is impossible to prove a negative. If you are honest you have to call yourself agnostic.

Well that's your opinion. In logic that's actually called argument from ignorance. It's a logical fallacy and I'd be happy to prove it for you if you don't believe me.

The whole problem with the philosophies regarding religion is that they all spring from a basis where they define their position in relation to existing religious beliefs. It quickly becomes polarised. Polarisation can only occur if there are two sides. I deny this is the case.

Apatheism, which I sort myself under, does strictly speaking count as both atheism and agnosticism. It's also known as practical atheism/agnosticism. It's the belief that we should work with what evidence we've got.

Since no supernatural religion has any verifiable proof to relate to, we're still at square one. We can only talk about the merits of the Christian theory of supernatural if we somehow can distinguish it from the Greek Pantheon, Norse myths or any other fantasy theory I just made up now. If we can't, then what's the point? Based on what we have to work with we still have no reason to treat the Christian view of the world as anything but fantasy.

That's why I call myself Atheist. I don't deny that the Christians could be right, but we haven't reached a point where we've got reason to even consider any of it, have we?

The Christian says, "I believe I'll go to heaven"
The Atheist says, "...and this belief is based on what?"
...and so it goes.

If we're to have a theological discussion, we need something to work with, don't we? Something we know is true. A starting point. Since its inception Christian theology is still only at a "what-if" stage. It's a pretty futile project. What if my cock really is a rocket and will go into space when I die? The reaction from anybody is at best a smile. But nobody will take it seriously until they see it happen, will they? Just like with the Flying Spaghetti Monster. This is still where Christianity is at today.

I understand that a Christian community can be a great and supportive and give lots of comfort and fill many social needs. It can provide a great framework for living ones life. The commandments include all the basic human values we share. Those are great to stick to. Why not just keep it at that? Why cling to ancient theories we should have moved on from long ago? What possible good can it do?

[TomOfSweden]

Actually Newton's theological writings are widely available to anyone who cares to look for them. But maybe they were all planted to try to discredit him by rival scientists.

Here is an exerpt from Newton's biography from the Oxford Encyclopedia of the Enlightenment (2002)

I don't deny that Newton was both Christian and a great scientist. I'm not sure what it is you're misunderstanding. If there's two doors to chose from, I'll do all the research I can before picking one. But if there really is a third door that I didn't see because science hadn't reached that point yet, then I don't include it in my research, even though all scientists after it will.

We had a similar discussion about Darwin in the Creationism debate. When Darwin wrote his theory it was still just a theory and very badly supported by evidence. When Einstein wrote his theory of relativity it was completely and utterly devoid of any proof. But later, both these theories where corroborated by experiments.

Newton made loads of research into the Bible. Numerology if I remember correctly. None of that has yet to be corroborated. I don't doubt for a second it was serious research. His religious theories haven't reached a point where there's any point in taking them seriously. Maybe at some point in the future we'll see some. But until then there's no point in believing in the Christian god is there?

[TomOfSweden]

Aw....shit. For somebody who'd badly over worked and with no time what so ever to spare. I frequent this site a lot. Stressssssss.

I'm trying to keep myself away from this place but it's very very hard.

[tessa]

My goodness I'm talking around in circles I think I just disappeared up my own bum. It's ok though the string theory is hanging out I'll just pull on that and I'll be right.

Mung beans mortals!

G

I appreciated all of your post, Sir G, but this part- priceless.

Originally Posted by TomOfSweden
Here's a serious question. I've made an assumption of people who go to Church. I've made an assumption that they reject other religions. I've made an assumption that Christians deny that the Satanists may be right. Is that the case?

You seriously asked and I seriously answered. Then you replied with...

Originally Posted by TomOfSweden
So basically you call yourself belonging to a religion without denying that it could all be bullshit?

Due to the phrasing, I'm not sure I correctly comprehend what you are asking here, so I will refrain from answering this question from you. However, I do know that I wouldn't include in my reply the comparison of anything with "bullshit", as I'm pretty sure it would be going against Forum rules to do so.

Originally by TomOfSweden
If we're to have a theological discussion, we need something to work with, don't we? Something we know is true.

What is true? How do we know it's true? Because it's been proven in a scientific manner? Anything can be "proven" scientifically given the right (wrong?) conditions. Because we see it with our own two eyes? Seeing is most definitively not believing. Ask the eye-witnesses to a crime what the bad guy was wearing and you'll get as many different answers as there are colors in the rainbow. Because our faith allows us to believe in it? Well, that's not one you particularly care to ponder, so I move on. Because it's what we perceive as true? Self-peception of what's true is as close as we mortals will get to it, in my opinion.

Or perhaps what's "true" is spoken as such because someone with too many letters after their name calls it a "proven theory"- what an oxymoron. Again, in my opinion.

Speaking of those type morons (will she, won't she?...will she, won't she?), here's another one for you from Tennyson's Idylls of the King:

"And faith unfaithful kept him falsely true."

It's a thought.

[Rhabbi]

Apatheism, which I sort myself under, does strictly speaking count as both atheism and agnosticism. It's also known as practical atheism/agnosticism. It's the belief that we should work with what evidence we've got.

Tom, if you were truly an apatheist, we would not be having this discussion, because you would not care what I believed.

an apatheist is someone who considers the question of the existence of God as neither meaningful nor relevant to human affairs.

If this was truly your belief system you would simply let me believe what ever I wanted, and refuse to discuss it because it is totally irrelevant. I feel this way about some things, and I let people talk about them without any input from me.

All those people who believe in a massive conspiracy behind the JFK assassination are totally free to believe whatever they want. I do not even discuss it with them because I know their views have absolutely no impact on my life or society in general. That is the approach you would take if you truly believed what you claimed to believe, but because my faith actually conflicts with yours, whatever it actually is, you feel the need to argue your point of view. Just something to think about.

[tessa]

I'm trying to keep myself away from this place but it's very very hard.

What's hard? Oh, please be what I'm thinking! If so, got any pictures of that???



I jest. ~looks at Red laughing at me~ Seriously, I do!

Sorry you're overworked. Better than being underworked, right?

[TomOfSweden]

Tom, if you were truly an apatheist, we would not be having this discussion, because you would not care what I believed.



If this was truly your belief system you would simply let me believe what ever I wanted, and refuse to discuss it because it is totally irrelevant. I feel this way about some things, and I let people talk about them without any input from me.

All those people who believe in a massive conspiracy behind the JFK assassination are totally free to believe whatever they want. I do not even discuss it with them because I know their views have absolutely no impact on my life or society in general. That is the approach you would take if you truly believed what you claimed to believe, but because my faith actually conflicts with yours, whatever it actually is, you feel the need to argue your point of view. Just something to think about.

There's plenty of sub categories of Apatheism. Aparently I care enough to have this discussion, don't I? As I said, these definitions have all evolved in relation to Christianity and that's why they have the wording they do.

My interpretation is that I don't give any credibility to theories which are indistinguishable from fantasy. I don't care about them if you will. If a Christian says that they'll go to heaven when they die but refuse to show any evidence for it that I can in any way corroborate....well...then there's not much to have a discussion about. The Christian in this case has based a decision on faulty reasoning derived from incomplete evidence.

[Rhabbi]

There's plenty of sub categories of Apatheism. Aparently I care enough to have this discussion, don't I? As I said, these definitions have all evolved in relation to Christianity and that's why they have the wording they do.

My interpretation is that I don't give any credibility to theories which are indistinguishable from fantasy. I don't care about them if you will. If a Christian says that they'll go to heaven when they die but refuse to show any evidence for it that I can in any way corroborate....well...then there's not much to have a discussion about. The Christian in this case has based a decision on faulty reasoning derived from incomplete evidence.

The thing is Tom, not all Christians claim they will go to heaven. I personally have no idea who, if anyone, will go to heaven. that is not my decision. I am not in management, just customer service.

You really know very little about the beliefs of Christians, or you would not have made some of the comments you have made. What you keep focusing on are the opinions of a few of the radical right wing of the Christian groups, those who are willing to compromise their stated beliefs to support anyone who pays lip service to their hot button issues. Why you would think that I would base my faith on the thoughts of a bunch of hypocrites is beyond me.

[Sir_G]

This thread has kept me entertained and thanks to Rhabbi much more enlightened on physics that school ever did. I'm outa my depth now so I'll just tread water and watch for more developments.

Treading water and laughing is more difficult than I *blub* thought. Thank the floating theory in the sky I had that string cause I know I cant breath through my arse.

[Flaming_Redhead]

What's hard? Oh, please be what I'm thinking! If so, got any pictures of that???



I jest. ~looks at Red laughing at me~ Seriously, I do!

Uh-huh. *nods knowingly* I believe you.

*whispers* How did you know I was hanging around to see it, too?

[John56{vg}]

You really know very little about the beliefs of Christians, or you would not have made some of the comments you have made. What you keep focusing on are the opinions of a few of the radical right wing of the Christian groups, those who are willing to compromise their stated beliefs to support anyone who pays lip service to their hot button issues. Why you would think that I would base my faith on the thoughts of a bunch of hypocrites is beyond me.

Good point Rhabbi.

I think there are just as many ignorant atheists and scientists as there are ignorant fundamentalist CHristians.

Ignorance is what the root word says, ignoring the senses and discoveries. I belive wholeheartedly in the Theory of evolution, becasue it makes sense and we can see it in operation all around us. And it doesn not preclude the operation of a supreme being, IMHO. It is still magical and amzing and wondrous as a lot of things in nature and the universe.

Atheists and some scientists ignore the operation of this magical force. The chemistry of attraction, The miracle and magic of birth, the prayer that is intuition. And I have had several events in my life that I cannot explain. I choose to belive they are messages from a supernatural force. But just like the Fundamentalist Christian closes his or her eyes to the meesages that say evoluytion is very real, the atheist closes his or her eyes to the very real possibility theat there are forces greater than we are, that are Super-natural.

Again, my humble opinion.

[TomOfSweden]

The thing is Tom, not all Christians claim they will go to heaven. I personally have no idea who, if anyone, will go to heaven. that is not my decision. I am not in management, just customer service.

You really know very little about the beliefs of Christians, or you would not have made some of the comments you have made. What you keep focusing on are the opinions of a few of the radical right wing of the Christian groups, those who are willing to compromise their stated beliefs to support anyone who pays lip service to their hot button issues. Why you would think that I would base my faith on the thoughts of a bunch of hypocrites is beyond me.

Well, that shut me up. As usual most people react to and base our opinions on the most extreme cases. As do I aparently, no matter how much I think I don't. Touche. But I've had discussions earlier where Christians here, that have said that they do believe they will go to heaven when they die, so I don't think it's confined to the extreme right wing. But you've made it aparent that it doesn't aply to you. Soooo.....erm...yeah. You win.

It's wonderful to have one of these moments where the world is a little bit more beautiful than you had imagined just a moment ago. Even though Rabbit isn't with us any longer.

[Rhabbi]

Well, that shut me up. As usual most people react to and base our opinions on the most extreme cases. As do I aparently, no matter how much I think I don't. Touche. But I've had discussions earlier where Christians here, that have said that they do believe they will go to heaven when they die, so I don't think it's confined to the extreme right wing. But you've made it aparent that it doesn't aply to you. Soooo.....erm...yeah. You win.

It's wonderful to have one of these moments where the world is a little bit more beautiful than you had imagined just a moment ago. Even though Rabbit isn't with us any longer.

Tom, I bow to your graciousness here. The world is a marvelous place if we go out and look at it, even the parts that we think we do not like. And, like you, I wish Rabbit was here to share this wonder with us.

As for Christians believing they will go to heaven, most believe that because that is what they have been taught, not because that is what the Bible says. If asked they will be unable to site verses that support their belief because most of them tend to only believe what they here from the pulpit, and not study the bible enough to know what it really says.

[thrall]

It took you both long enough to hash this all out!!!!!..........lol


Please refer back to post #29 in this thread..............*wink*


hugs and kisses all round........

[TomOfSweden]

It took you both long enough to hash this all out!!!!!..........lol


Please refer back to post #29 in this thread..............*wink*


hugs and kisses all round........

Yeah, but don't you think there's a value in having that opinion challenged and tested? I for one have become all the wiser from this thread because of it.

[TomOfSweden]

What is true? How do we know it's true? Because it's been proven in a scientific manner? Anything can be "proven" scientifically given the right (wrong?) conditions. Because we see it with our own two eyes? Seeing is most definitively not believing. Ask the eye-witnesses to a crime what the bad guy was wearing and you'll get as many different answers as there are colors in the rainbow. Because our faith allows us to believe in it? Well, that's not one you particularly care to ponder, so I move on. Because it's what we perceive as true? Self-peception of what's true is as close as we mortals will get to it, in my opinion.

Or perhaps what's "true" is spoken as such because someone with too many letters after their name calls it a "proven theory"- what an oxymoron. Again, in my opinion.

Speaking of those type morons (will she, won't she?...will she, won't she?), here's another one for you from Tennyson's Idylls of the King:

"And faith unfaithful kept him falsely true."

It's a thought.

So I finally had a quite moment to sit and ponder this thread. I'm sorry my answers have been a bit rushed here. I really shouldn't have even tried coming here earlier this week, but the library is such a addictive place.

Ok, truth. All methods of finding the truth aren't equally as good. When people say that science can't find all the answers and that just because nobody can fit god into a beaker doesn't invalidate it.

A major problem in science is that you often don't know what you're looking for until you've allready found it. People seldom find what they hoped they would. And often they think they find it and then 150 years later somebody turns the model the right way up. As they did with the now extinct creature Hallicinogensis.

Isn't the plain and painful truth is that we have no better method than science? We can't trust our senses or common sense. We can't trust our feelings either.

A problem that religious research faces is off-course that it's impossible for anybody to verify. So the Bible says that god and the angels communicates with to people. What is that based on? How do we know that the people who had these visions weren't just plain crazy or hallucinated? What I don't understand is under these circumstances anybody can take the leap of faith? I can understand if somebody wonders about freaky shit they've seen and can't explain. But that's all it is. Things that can't be explained. To extrapolate from this the extremely complex system of belief that Christianity is, is extremely far fetched.

I understand that we like seeing meaning in things happening. We all have the compulsion to create narratives for everything happening around us. So we like to be able to explain things. But that doesn't mean we really can.

If I hear my now dead grandmothers voice calling out to me in my head and telling me stuff I can from that draw very little conclusions This has actually happened to me.

It may indicate that somehow her spirit survived and is floating around and is trying to tell me things. Maybe. It may also be that she's become an angel and is communicating with me from heaven. Maybe. It may also be that she was reincarnated as a fly on the wall and because of our close connection she can somehow communicate with me. Maybe. She may have entered a dimensional rift and can speak to me through a rip in the space time continuum. Maybe. It may not be a supernatural occurrence at all. Maybe.

There really is no point for me to try to come up with my own scientific theory for how this happend since I'm not half as good at neuro science or psychology to come up with an explanation. I haven't asked any religious authority figure about it, but I doubt they could say anything convincing. How did they come to their insights? How do they know that what they're saying is the truth? My point is that I don't see any fault in admitting that I don't know. And I'm also totally open to the fact that it could be a third possibility, and whole paradigm of thought that hasn't sprung into existence yet.

The major problem with all the religions is that there's really no reason to believe any of their theories. And if there's no reason to adapt a theory then why do it? If it's only guesswork then why? Why have faith in something when it is blind faith?

[Guest 91108]

Christianity has so many flaws, I won't touch that part. However.. step outside the concept of organised religion and go into true individual spirituality and you will know what the truth is..
Stop being so concerned with what can be proven. and think from within.

science is like the media.. it gets it's own spin conjured up for it's own reasons. Just ask the pharmacuetical companies.

[TomOfSweden]

Christianity has so many flaws, I won't touch that part. However.. step outside the concept of organised religion and go into true individual spirituality and you will know what the truth is..
Stop being so concerned with what can be proven. and think from within.

science is like the media.. it gets it's own spin conjured up for it's own reasons. Just ask the pharmacuetical companies.

I don't get it. Why would we reach a better understanding of truth by turning to our own individual spirituality? I wouldn't for a second assume that I have the knowledge required to evaluate all the freaky and unexplained stuff appearing in my head and happening around me. I think that's pretty arrogant.

I don't think for a second that you think that evidence isn't necessary. We don't believe anything without proof. The question is where we put the bar for when the evidence is enough and how we draw conclusions. If I hear the voice of my dead grandmother. That is proof to me that I hear the voice. Whether or not you take that as evidence of a specific supernatural entity is another matter.

If you hear the voice of god in your head and you believe it really was god, then that is sufficient proof for you. The problem arises that if we would explain it with you hallucinating, which is backed up by the same amount of evidence then the evidence is 1-1, which shouldn't be enough to draw any conclusion. And that's just using one other explanation. If we start mixing in other religions or other forms of sound mix ups, (like it was a voice from the TV) it quickly becomes messy.

Just the fact that a thought/feeling pops up in our head is evidence that the thought exists, has relevance and we will evaluate it, whether or not you chose to use that terminology. If you go into a room and "vibe it in" you are doing research and you are comparing and evaluating evidence. It's just not scientific research. Even though I don't disregard research done in this fashion I don't value it as highly as methodical research. Do you?

I don't dispute for a second that science has a tendency to get carried away with its findings and over dramatize projected results. Global warming anyone? But that still isn't a case against science. As I've said earlier, just because science can't explain something doesn't give any added credibility to any other form of explanation.

[Guest 91108]

ToS, .. the fact that you don't get it is exactly why you keep these discussions going.

and Yes, Turning inward and using intuitive knowledge is enough for me to decide truth on. And it's not that it can just be used with spiritality.. that's just what I posted in first post.
Intuitively feeling a person from their words and so forth and going from there has proven to be correct as well in deciding things on others.

[TomOfSweden]

ToS, .. the fact that you don't get it is exactly why you keep these discussions going.

and Yes, Turning inward and using intuitive knowledge is enough for me to decide truth on.

Just to avoid confusion. I'm still only talking about supernatural explanations to phenomena. I'm not discussing ethics or emotional states.

I think it's the other way around. By turning inward and going with intuition you're making complex issues simple, which gets you further away from the truth. It may look like truth on the surface but isn't once you go digging.

The limit is always our own understanding. We'll never enter in theories that we've never heard of and theories we don't understand. I think it's impossible to leave intuition completely out of the decision making processes, but I do think it should be kept to a absolute minimum.

By turning inward in the way you suggest, I think your real goal is to find an answer that quells the searching your soul is doing. It has nothing to do with finding truth. If you've reached an answer that you are happy with, it only means just that. That you are happy.

Just like Red was saying. People might turn to the Bible because it is a constant in an ever changing world. It is constant because it is a gross simplification. It makes claims and assumptions it has no basis for doing. The fact that it is easy to understand doesn't add to the correctness. Even though it has plenty of answers I'm very doubtful any of them is the "truth".

[Alex Bragi]

A legitimate conflict between science and religion cannot exist. Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."
- Albert Einstein

"Science can purify religion from error and superstition; religion can purify science from idolatry and false absolutes. Each can draw the other into a wider world, a world in which both can flourish…We need each other to be what we must be, what we are called to be."
- Pope John Paul II

Isn't interesting that the greats of science and religion should think so alike?

[TomOfSweden]

A legitimate conflict between science and religion cannot exist. Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."
- Albert Einstein

"Science can purify religion from error and superstition; religion can purify science from idolatry and false absolutes. Each can draw the other into a wider world, a world in which both can flourish…We need each other to be what we must be, what we are called to be."
- Pope John Paul II

Isn't interesting that the greats of science and religion should think so alike?

Considering all the other stuff Wojtyla said and did during his reign, I wouldn't call him a big fan of science. He's probably the most scientifically inclined pope we've had yet, but I'm not taking him off my list of religious loons just yet.

....and what Einstein meant by that is up for interpretation. I'm not so sure myself. He wasn't especially religious himself.

[tessa]

How do they know that what they're saying is the truth?

They don't. It's called faith. And you have it just like I do, Tom. It's why you got married. Faith, hope and love...

My point is that I don't see any fault in admitting that I don't know. And I'm also totally open to the fact that it could be a third possibility, and whole paradigm of thought that hasn't sprung into existence yet.

And this is why I read what you have to say and learn something from it. And it's why I respect you a pretty good little bit, Mr. Tom.

Christianity has so many flaws, I won't touch that part.

Add the word "organized" in front of that (as Wolfscout did), and I'm in complete agreement. But one's own personal spirituality, yeah, that's where one needs to look for truth. Way to say that, Wolfie.

Isn't interesting that the greats of science and religion should think so alike?

Alex Bragi is brilliant!...she said for the umpteenth time. I should just make a sign...walk around with it and flash it as necessary.

Fabulous discussion/debate, people. Thanks for the learning!

tessa

ps. Still laughing over Sir G's "string theory".

[thrall]

Yeah, but don't you think there's a value in having that opinion challenged and tested? I for one have become all the wiser from this thread because of it.

Hi Tom

I agree with you that the ability to have a civilized debate is a wonderful thing. It is how humanity will survive. To be able to have a conversation about things controversial is essential to understanding the world at large.

But you must understand that on some subjects, there will be no resolution only personal opinion. Religion and or spirituality is one of those topics. People believe what they believe. There is no right or wrong answer, there is no one way, there is however……… only personal opinion.

Religion, spirituality, or lack there of, is a matter of what people believe. Right or wrong, evidence or lack there of, means nothing…………it is about personal beliefs.

Think about this……religion/spirituality are like emotions. There is no hard evidence of emotions, but they exist for each of us as individuals. I feel what I feel, but cannot feel what someone else is experiencing……….LOL

In debates such as this, where the conversation continues in a circle……the answer to the conundrum is…………to agree to disagree.

For what it's worth, Tom, I am a hard science girl myself and always have been. I want the answers in my hand with scientific evidence to back it all up.

That being said…….I still wrote Clusters and believe in it……….LOL……….

In debates such as this you must be able to state your own opinion and also be willing to except that there may be another opinion/explanation other that your own. You must be wiling to share you values and respect those of others.



Bravo to all those that have contributed in this thread….that is exactly what everyone is doing.


Thrall

[Rhabbi]

Ok, truth. All methods of finding the truth aren't equally as good. When people say that science can't find all the answers and that just because nobody can fit god into a beaker doesn't invalidate it.

I have to agree with you here Tom. Science has been working on the holy grail of a unified field theory for a long time, yet are further away from it now than when they started because our understanding of the universe is more complex.

A major problem in science is that you often don't know what you're looking for until you've allready found it. People seldom find what they hoped they would. And often they think they find it and then 150 years later somebody turns the model the right way up. As they did with the now extinct creature Hallicinogensis.

That is one of the amazing things about science, so much progress is made through accidental discoveries.

Isn't the plain and painful truth is that we have no better method than science? We can't trust our senses or common sense. We can't trust our feelings either.

Why can"t we?

A problem that religious research faces is off-course that it's impossible for anybody to verify. So the Bible says that god and the angels communicates with to people. What is that based on? How do we know that the people who had these visions weren't just plain crazy or hallucinated? What I don't understand is under these circumstances anybody can take the leap of faith? I can understand if somebody wonders about freaky shit they've seen and can't explain. But that's all it is. Things that can't be explained. To extrapolate from this the extremely complex system of belief that Christianity is, is extremely far fetched.

I understand that we like seeing meaning in things happening. We all have the compulsion to create narratives for everything happening around us. So we like to be able to explain things. But that doesn't mean we really can.

If I hear my now dead grandmothers voice calling out to me in my head and telling me stuff I can from that draw very little conclusions This has actually happened to me.

It may indicate that somehow her spirit survived and is floating around and is trying to tell me things. Maybe. It may also be that she's become an angel and is communicating with me from heaven. Maybe. It may also be that she was reincarnated as a fly on the wall and because of our close connection she can somehow communicate with me. Maybe. She may have entered a dimensional rift and can speak to me through a rip in the space time continuum. Maybe. It may not be a supernatural occurrence at all. Maybe.

There really is no point for me to try to come up with my own scientific theory for how this happend since I'm not half as good at neuro science or psychology to come up with an explanation. I haven't asked any religious authority figure about it, but I doubt they could say anything convincing. How did they come to their insights? How do they know that what they're saying is the truth? My point is that I don't see any fault in admitting that I don't know. And I'm also totally open to the fact that it could be a third possibility, and whole paradigm of thought that hasn't sprung into existence yet.

The major problem with all the religions is that there's really no reason to believe any of their theories. And if there's no reason to adapt a theory then why do it? If it's only guesswork then why? Why have faith in something when it is blind faith?

Here is where you are making a mistake Tom. You are focusing on objective truth. You admit that you are unable to explain that you heard your dead grandmother's voice, and I admit that I cannot. But I do not try to convince you that it did not happen. This is because I recognize that there is subjective truth also.

Just because I would do everything in my power to prove that any manifestation of a ghost is an absolute hoax does not mean that I do not recognize that, for some people, they are real. You call this blind faith.

Let me explain the difference to you between blind faith and faith.

Blind faith is what you do use every time you eat food that you did not see prepared, or it was not prepared by someone you trust implicitly. You trust that everyone who had contact with that food followed all the proper procedures for handling food, that they are healthy, and that they do not have any reason whatsoever to do you harm. this would include just being pissed off at the world in general and not deciding to take it out on some random customer, or just not liking the way you look. That is blind faith.

My faith is based on study and questioning everything that I come across. I believe in God not because someone told me too, but because after years of study and research I determined to my satisfaction that He exists. This does not mean that I claim to have the answers, because I do not. My faith is not blind.

I will admit that most people who believe in God did not go through the process I did, but I can show you a number of people through history that did. Blind faith is out there, but not all faith is blind faith.

Isn't interesting that the greats of science and religion should think so alike?

Amen Alex!

[Guest 91108]

...
Think about this……religion/spirituality is like emotions. There is no hard evidence of emotions, but they exist for each of us as individuals. I feel what I feel, but cannot feel what someone else is experiencing……….LOL
...
Bravo to all those that have contributed in this thread….that is exactly what everyone is doing.


Thrall

Very nice Thrall .. thank you for inputting..

[TomOfSweden]

They don't. It's called faith. And you have it just like I do, Tom. It's why you got married. Faith, hope and love...

Isn't that just sweeping the problem under the carpet. How can it make any sense to build a case for and against something. Weigh them together. Not being able to reach a conclusion, (who can?) and then pick one based on faith? That's not faith, that's willful self delusion.

[TomOfSweden]

Hi Tom

I agree with you that the ability to have a civilized debate is a wonderful thing. It is how humanity will survive. To be able to have a conversation about things controversial is essential to understanding the world at large.

But you must understand that on some subjects, there will be no resolution only personal opinion. Religion and or spirituality is one of those topics. People believe what they believe. There is no right or wrong answer, there is no one way, there is however……… only personal opinion.

Religion, spirituality, or lack there of, is a matter of what people believe. Right or wrong, evidence or lack there of, means nothing…………it is about personal beliefs.

Think about this……religion/spirituality are like emotions. There is no hard evidence of emotions, but they exist for each of us as individuals. I feel what I feel, but cannot feel what someone else is experiencing……….LOL

In debates such as this, where the conversation continues in a circle……the answer to the conundrum is…………to agree to disagree.

For what it's worth, Tom, I am a hard science girl myself and always have been. I want the answers in my hand with scientific evidence to back it all up.

That being said…….I still wrote Clusters and believe in it……….LOL……….

In debates such as this you must be able to state your own opinion and also be willing to except that there may be another opinion/explanation other that your own. You must be wiling to share you values and respect those of others.



Bravo to all those that have contributed in this thread….that is exactly what everyone is doing.


Thrall

Unsurprisingly I don't agree. The problem with the religion debate is the lack of evidence for and against. But we have the wonderful tool of logic. We can work stuff out because of the lack of evidence. Argument from ignorance doesn't work. In other words saying that god cannot be disproven has never been a valid argument. It's simple to show it because it always opens the infinate. The burden of evidence is always on the one making the claim. Whether it is to one self or others is of no consequence. Ignoring this is simply trying hard to fool one self.

The discussion on religion has to be about which evidence there are and then evaluate them. There's no way we can reason about an entity we know nothing about.

These are all pretty basic things. So religious faith is not only about opinion, but structured reasoning and logic.

Another important factor in logic is to have a good enough set of evidence to draw conclusions from. If we have one piece of acceptable for us evidence of the existence of something supernatural. Let's say that my granny spoke to me. Let's for sake of argument assume that there was no way that could have happened naturaly. What assumptions can we draw from that? Rhabbi is a big fan of Ockams razor. So let's aply it. And this brings us nowhere closer to any particular faith. Even if we accept all the miracles in the Bible...they offer no support for the particular model of the universe the Bible presents. It could all be coinidence. It could all be missunderstanding.

Just like Mohammed in the Koran missunderstood Gabriel a few times and was corrected later. I actually love this feature in the Koran. That the later Suras over ride the earlier do to Gabriels corrections.

My point being that even if there was a god. Even if the miracles in the Bible where real. Even if god speaks to us. And even if god can effect our world. Even then, we know nothing about the nature of god. Just read Thomas Aquinas! He dedicated his entire life to reasoning about the nature of god. He thought he reached a conclusion with some creative thinking. But instead he managed to prove that we know nothing.

Thomas Aquinas is also a good example of how pressure of our peers can adulterate our thinking. The ancient Greeks hammered out all the nooks and crannies in logic. We have no reason to think the system of logic is at flaw. Aquinas was no idiot. He was without a doubt one of the absolut top geniuses that have ever lived. It took all the hundreds of years to Shoppenhaur before somebody joined Aquinas dots.

We are all logical beings. We all use logic to reason about everything around us. Conscious or not. And very often we are lazy and take short cuts. Nothing wrong with that. I always knock the cents off when counting money. It's more practical. But when logic is used to willfully fool oneself in such a big decision in life as with religious faith....it makes me sad...and frustrated.

It's not only down to faith and personal opinion. I firmly believe belief in the supernatural can be reasoned, discussed and I do believe shared conclusions can be reached. Being lazy and unconfrontational with one self is not a reason to cling to a faith.

[TomOfSweden]

I have to agree with you here Tom. Science has been working on the holy grail of a unified field theory for a long time, yet are further away from it now than when they started because our understanding of the universe is more complex.

I wouldn't say further away. Knowing something doesn't work is also knowledge and therefore a step forward. But any solution does seem to still be pretty far off.

Why can"t we?

Can you? I can't. I get upset about stuff that I later found out I'd missunderstood. I'd say that the fact that I'm sad isn't proof for anything at all outside our bodies.

Here is where you are making a mistake Tom. You are focusing on objective truth. You admit that you are unable to explain that you heard your dead grandmother's voice, and I admit that I cannot. But I do not try to convince you that it did not happen. This is because I recognize that there is subjective truth also.

Just because I would do everything in my power to prove that any manifestation of a ghost is an absolute hoax does not mean that I do not recognize that, for some people, they are real. You call this blind faith.

Let me explain the difference to you between blind faith and faith.

Blind faith is what you do use every time you eat food that you did not see prepared, or it was not prepared by someone you trust implicitly. You trust that everyone who had contact with that food followed all the proper procedures for handling food, that they are healthy, and that they do not have any reason whatsoever to do you harm. this would include just being pissed off at the world in general and not deciding to take it out on some random customer, or just not liking the way you look. That is blind faith.

My faith is based on study and questioning everything that I come across. I believe in God not because someone told me too, but because after years of study and research I determined to my satisfaction that He exists. This does not mean that I claim to have the answers, because I do not. My faith is not blind.

I will admit that most people who believe in God did not go through the process I did, but I can show you a number of people through history that did. Blind faith is out there, but not all faith is blind faith.

When we're discussing objectivity and relativity in truth it quickly gets hairy. I think you'll have to explain what you mean by subjective/objective truth. If truth is subjective in every case we all live in seperate dimensions. I think that's highly unlikely. I do believe that outside the world our minds create there is a reality. It may be adulterated by our opinions and filtered through our senses. But I do believe it is there. Which denies that truth can be subjective.

Truth can be different between people if we have different interpretations of the subject matter. But that doesn't actually change the level of objective truth, does it? "Truth" is another one of my many philosophical obsessions.

It's very interesting now with the post modernist school often trying to make all truth relative to cultural interpretation. But I doubt we'll get much further than Nietzsche. You'll need to make a pretty solid case for subjective truth in such a concrete issue as whether or not the voice of my granny is of supernatural origin.

I'll admit that when I heard my grannies voice my first leap of faith was, "that was cool I wonder why I heard her voice". In other words, I assumed it was of non-supernatural origin and left it at that. I had no basis for making this leap of faith other than that I'd never at any other time seen anything supernatural. But that doesn't discount this as a supernatural occurence. But where can I take it from here? Now I know that I have a case of possible supernatural occurence. Can I draw any conclusions of the nature of this possible supernatural force?

We live in a world of very few answers.

I understand that you have questioned your faith, but you do agree that the act of questioning your faith alone doesn't necesarily add to it's level of truth? How we do this questioning is just as important. I have yet to see any valid line of reasoning that would bring anybody to the christian faith. Even if we accept the existence of the supernatural and miracles, we still have nothing to work with.