Can the inner core of All Religions and the Insights of Ultra Modern Science Meet?

[gnomon]

What is this core of all religions?

 

[Vinayaka]

What is this core of all religions?

There isn't one.

 

[doppelganger]

What is "ultra modern science"?

And what do you consider the "inner core" of all religions?

Mysticism is not at all incompatible with the scientific method. They complement each other quite nicely. You might even say that the great minds of science were practicing mysticism.

 

[drsatish]

What is "ultra modern science"?

And what do you consider the "inner core" of all religions?

Mysticism is not at all incompatible with the scientific method. They complement each other quite nicely. You might even say that the great minds of science were practicing mysticism.

By “ultra modern science”, I mean the new bleeding-edge science which contradicts everyday thinking and perceptions (which was in full agreement with Newtonian science.)
Some examples would be:

• Time being relative, depending on the speed of the body (Einstein)
• At the Quantum level, things are NOT clear-cut and are uncertain. (Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle)
• Curved Space, Space-Time Warps and possible worm-holes.
• Black Holes Mysterica.
• Dark Energy.

[FONT=&quot]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_energy[/FONT]

• Dark Matter

[FONT=&quot]http://science.nasa.gov/astrophysics/focus-areas/what-is-dark-energy/[/FONT]

• Quantum Entanglement.

[FONT=&quot]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_entanglement[/FONT]

• Parallel Universes

[FONT=&quot]http://www.manyuniverses.com/[/FONT]

• And so on…

"And what do you consider the "inner core" of all religions?"

…when a person of ANY religion or even an atheist, experiences and perceives the Self of Oneself as being identical to the Self of All Others…..and ONENESS becomes a Living everyday World View.

“Mysticism is not at all incompatible with the scientific method.”
I agree with you. Could you elaborate on it….may be a short essay?
Satish

 

[gnomon]

The concept of relativity is not ultra modern science.

Galileo Galilee discussed relativity in the 17th century. A basic concept of atoms is older than Christianity. The mindset of humans thousands of years ago appears to be right in line with our mindset today. We just happen to have the advantage of thousands of years of technological advancement which has expanded our ability to make observations and not rely on pure speculation.

As well, the perception of the Self as being one with others is most definitely not the core of all religions. Some might consider such a view to be either presumptuous or arrogant. Or both.

 

[drsatish]

The concept of relativity is not ultra modern science.

Galileo Galilee discussed relativity in the 17th century. A basic concept of atoms is older than Christianity. The mindset of humans thousands of years ago appears to be right in line with our mindset today. We just happen to have the advantage of thousands of years of technological advancement which has expanded our ability to make observations and not rely on pure speculation.

As well, the perception of the Self as being one with others is most definitely not the core of all religions. Some might consider such a view to be either presumptuous or arrogant. Or both.

Some might!


I know Theory of Relativity is almost a century old.


First, special relativity was published in 1905, and the final form of general relativity was published in 1916.[4] Second, special relativity fits with and solves for elementary particles and their interactions, whereas general relativity solves for the cosmological and astrophysical realm (including astronomy).[4] Third, special relativity was widely accepted in the physics community by 1920.
Theory of relativity - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
But HAS IT BEEN TAUGHT IN SCHOOLS as a Primary Concept of the Universe in ALL schools of the World since 1920?


In my teens when I told about the “Twin Paradox” to my parents,
“in which a twin makes a journey into space in a high-speed rocket and returns home to find he has aged less than his identical twin who stayed on Earth”
[FONT=&quot]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twin_paradox[/FONT]
they were seriously concerned that there was something wrong with my “upstairs” – and they are highly qualified! They HAD NOT heard or learned about this phenomenon as most have not. Hence I call it “ultra modern science”.


“Atoms” were speculated eons back but ‘discrete solid indivisible matter particles’ went OK with common sense and the common man’s view of the world.


By Self I don’t mean the common meaning of everyday usage: we as individual personalities; I having a name and you having a name; I have these possessions and abilities and you have those possessions and abilities – NOT THAT SELF.


There is Another Deep Self which you can experience and UNLESS YOU YOURSELF EXPERIENCE THAT INNER SELF,
There is NO WAY you will Agree with me.


..in fact That Self is the VERY ANTITHESIS
of presumption and arrogance.


Satish

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Can the inner core of All Religions and the Insights of Ultra Modern Science Meet?
After all there is ONLY ONE IS.
This “IS”

• Everyday Practical World & the Starry Sky you gaze at (sometimes!)
• This Universe + other Parallel Universes as hypothesized by ultra modern science.
• This Universe + other Worlds as per some religions.

Different tools have been used to analyse and understand this “THIS.”
Science uses the tools of observation, abstraction, hypothesizing and verification – by peers.
Spirituality & Religion also has its own tools like introspection, watching the content of your thoughts, emotions and perceptions, enquiry into the ‘substance’ of things etc.
Today we have the two mind-sets, utterly convinced about the reality of ‘its’ content and ridiculing, and bashing the other.
I am working on this ‘common’ point.
Any similar minds?
Other minds are also welcome to state their position.
Satish

Comparing the two demeans the creative and intellectual genius of scientific minds who conceive and define paradigm-shifting understandings of reality. If I ever saw a religious teacher or "mystic" convey a truth in the way the scientific geniuses do by reducing it to an elegant, understandable, and provable formula, then I might give them more credence. As it stands, they seem to rely on the age old methods of ambiguous and nebulous language which vaguely hints at subjective understandings. Anything that is a truth can be understood in the same objective way by all those who have the ability and inclination to learn about the concepts and variables involved. Anything less points towards something that is a vague, variably-interpreted notion that relies on it's ambiguity to retain its conveyed significance.

 

[doppelganger]

As well, the perception of the Self as being one with others is most definitely not the core of all religions. Some might consider such a view to be either presumptuous or arrogant. Or both.

If by "inner" he means in the sense of viewing religion in terms of its psychological connotations rather than as a matter of ontological/metaphysical belief, then it's reasonable to say that it is the "inner core" of almost all religious systems. For evidence of this, I'd refer you to Joseph Campbell's "Masks of God."

 

[gnomon]

Some might!


I know Theory of Relativity is almost a century old.


First, special relativity was published in 1905, and the final form of general relativity was published in 1916.[4] Second, special relativity fits with and solves for elementary particles and their interactions, whereas general relativity solves for the cosmological and astrophysical realm (including astronomy).[4] Third, special relativity was widely accepted in the physics community by 1920.
Theory of relativity - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
But HAS IT BEEN TAUGHT IN SCHOOLS as a Primary Concept of the Universe in ALL schools of the World since 1920?


In my teens when I told about the “Twin Paradox” to my parents,
“in which a twin makes a journey into space in a high-speed rocket and returns home to find he has aged less than his identical twin who stayed on Earth”
[FONT=&quot]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twin_paradox[/FONT]
they were seriously concerned that there was something wrong with my “upstairs” – and they are highly qualified! They HAD NOT heard or learned about this phenomenon as most have not. Hence I call it “ultra modern science”.


“Atoms” were speculated eons back but ‘discrete solid indivisible matter particles’ went OK with common sense and the common man’s view of the world.


By Self I don’t mean the common meaning of everyday usage: we as individual personalities; I having a name and you having a name; I have these possessions and abilities and you have those possessions and abilities – NOT THAT SELF.


There is Another Deep Self which you can experience and UNLESS YOU YOURSELF EXPERIENCE THAT INNER SELF,
There is NO WAY you will Agree with me.


..in fact That Self is the VERY ANTITHESIS
of presumption and arrogance.


Satish

That's nice.

 

[Vinayaka]

By Self I don’t mean the common meaning of everyday usage: we as individual personalities; I having a name and you having a name; I have these possessions and abilities and you have those possessions and abilities – NOT THAT SELF.

There is Another Deep Self which you can experience and UNLESS YOU YOURSELF EXPERIENCE THAT INNER SELF,
There is NO WAY you will Agree with me.

..in fact That Self is the VERY ANTITHESIS
of presumption and arrogance.

Satish

You and I believe in this 'Self' at the core, but many (especially Abrahamic ones) simply don't. So you're taking your own concepts that you (and I) hold dearly, and by some odd notion, presenting them as concepts of other religions as well. That's some mighty projection. Why not ask others what they believe, rather than projecting your beliefs onto them?

 

[Straw Dog]

Can the inner core of All Religions and the Insights of Ultra Modern Science Meet?
After all there is ONLY ONE IS.
This “IS”

• Everyday Practical World & the Starry Sky you gaze at (sometimes!)
• This Universe + other Parallel Universes as hypothesized by ultra modern science.
• This Universe + other Worlds as per some religions.

Different tools have been used to analyse and understand this “THIS.”
Science uses the tools of observation, abstraction, hypothesizing and verification – by peers.
Spirituality & Religion also has its own tools like introspection, watching the content of your thoughts, emotions and perceptions, enquiry into the ‘substance’ of things etc.
Today we have the two mind-sets, utterly convinced about the reality of ‘its’ content and ridiculing, and bashing the other.
I am working on this ‘common’ point.
Any similar minds?
Other minds are also welcome to state their position.
Satish

I think they will meet with science explaining religious/mystical experiences through the description of purely physical processes. I don't doubt mystical experiences, but I do doubt our interpretations of those experiences. If all science was doing was repeating bodies of knowledge that we already have access to through mystical intuition then there would be something redundant about it. I think the process of science has been exactly away from convergence with these other traditions. It's presenting us with a mechanical version of ourselves that we don't know how to take it in. It's very difficult for us to think about ourselves that way. We do have sufficient reason now, though, to believe that the physical universe is all the universe there is so... I think religions will continue to adapt themselves, or die out, in light of modern science and philosophy to eventually produce a common scientifically-based naturalistic spirituality. I've made the jump to naturalistic pantheism to get ahead of the curve, although I can't say what the future naturalistic spirituality will be exactly since all the science isn't in yet.

 

[drsatish]

Comparing the two demeans the creative and intellectual genius of scientific minds who conceive and define paradigm-shifting understandings of reality. If I ever saw a religious teacher or "mystic" convey a truth in the way the scientific geniuses do by reducing it to an elegant, understandable, and provable formula, then I might give them more credence. As it stands, they seem to rely on the age old methods of ambiguous and nebulous language which vaguely hints at subjective understandings. Anything that is a truth can be understood in the same objective way by all those who have the ability and inclination to learn about the concepts and variables involved. Anything less points towards something that is a vague, variably-interpreted notion that relies on it's ambiguity to retain its conveyed significance.

I don’t think it demeans. They are two different approaches: One is the result of the ‘logical’ function oriented areas of the brain and the other is the result of the intuitive areas of the brain.
Right Brain vs. Left Brain
Left Right* Hemisphere Brain Processing
Lateralization of brain function - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A totally one-sided approach is neither practical nor holistic.
ho•lism (h$Æliz Ãm), n. Philos.
1. the theory that whole entities, as fundamental components of reality, have an existence other than as the mere sum of their parts. Cf. organicism (def. 1).

For example, ONLY LOGIC will result in my name becoming I.Robot and your name becoming U.Robot and whatever gives the characteristic called ‘human’ in behavior, becomes superfluous, redundant and over time disappears and we will be LEFT WITH
TIN-MAN
& not
HU-MAN.

Two eyes (binocular) vision, ADDs a 3rd Dimension called Depth in our 3-D everyday perception of the world. Of course, you ‘c…a….n’ live with 1 eye, but it will be of the ‘Pirate Patch Eye’ kind….

Satish

 

[linwood]

Nope.